Iran Deal Failure Theater

We got into the Corker-Cardin/Menendez Iran bill a bit on the podcast last week but since Senate action is coming to a head this week, it's worth a fuller look.

As you may recall, Ace is steadfastly opposed to it in its current form. That makes sense because in its current form the bill is a finely crafted instrument designed to allow a majority of Senators to say they did exactly what their votes (on all sides) wanted while not actually doing a damn thing. Corker's inversion of the 2/3rd majority vote to approve a treaty into a 2/3rd majority vote to kill it is a perfect example. Low information voters will think it's being treated just like a treaty when in fact it will be the literal opposite of that.

So basically, it's the kind of deal Senators are genetically predisposed to love. If only it included some highway spending in every state it would the Platonic Ideal of Senate bills.

Unfortunately for Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio is running for President. He wants the bill to actually accomplish something. Like serve as a substantive check on Obama and Iran (yeah, they are basically the same at this point). And that's....a problem for the "be seen doing something but not really doing anything" crowd.

Remember when the deal was being negotiated and people said things like, "no deal is better than a bad deal" or "the choice isn't between this deal and a better one but this one and no deal"? Those sentiments apply to this bill.

If any of Rubio's amendments are agreed to (like ensuring the final deal conforms to Obama's "fact sheet") then the Democrats will kill it in the Senate or Obama will veto it and his veto will be sustained.

So either the Senate passes the fig leaf of Corker, which all but ensures that whatever Obama agrees to will survive a Senate vote of "disapproval" (only 37 Democrats will have to stick with Obama) or kill the bill and Obama will simply sign whatever he was going to sign anyway and Congress will never vote on it.

In the end, the outcome is basically the same.

The real question is, what's the best way to hang an Iran nuke around the collective necks of the Democrats? I'd say forgo Corker and make Democrats in the Senate vote on every single damn poison pill out there. Make them either kill a strong bill or make them vote for it, force Obama to veto it and then make Democrats choke on the inevitable outcome of this deal.

We'll have a better sense of this later today or tomorrow when McConnell will announce if Rubio's strong arm tactic to force poison pill votes is what the GOP Senate caucus wants or if they will simply pass Corker as is. read this story to get a sense of how Rubio is jamming McConnell on this. Basically McConnell could have kept Rubio's amendments off the floor and saved Republicans from either having to vote for them and killing the deal or vote against them and look soft on Iran. Rubio however used a parliamentary maneuver that forces McConnell to either let Rubio's poison pills come to a vote, thus forcing GOP Senators into the choice they want to avoid or end debate and kill amendments Republicans wanted to at least vote on to look tough but not so tough as to kill the deal.

But wait! This movie review isn't over....

How did we get here? Why isn't Obama forced to submit this as a treaty? Isn't this just more lawlessness from our Tyrant in Chief?

Taking the last question first...actually, no.

The reason this isn't a treaty requiring the Senate "consent" with a two-thirds vote is nothing Obama is promising to do in the agreement requires a change in US law or binds Congress to any actions.

What Obama is promising to do is waive or remove some sanctions using power he already has under existing law. Congress gave him the ability to do the things he's promising Iran he will do with regards to US sanctions. Congress could try and pass news legislation revoking that power but clearly that's a non-starter.

When it comes to UN sanctions, all Obama is doing is saying if Iran does A, B, and C he will instruct the US Ambassador to vote a certain way at the Security Council. No President needs to submit that kind of decision to the Senate for ratification.

Think of the Status of Forces Agreement George W. Bush signed with Iraq. That didn't go to the Senate because everything in it he committed the US to (like troop dispositions and levels) was in his power as President to set unilaterally.

This Iran deal is different from traditional arms control treaties with say, Russia. In those treaties the terms of the agreements placed limits on things like the number of nuclear warheads the US will produce. That's not something a President determines by himself. Congress sets those limits in defense spending and authorization bills. A President can't commit to another nation that he will be able to limit what Congress will do within its own sphere of action. Congress has to agree to be bound by those kind of limitations on its powers through the treaty ratification process.

Essentially Obama holds all the cards here. Congress gave him many of those of cards in the first place and the Constitution gave him the rest. The only consideration left is how the GOP will position itself for the political post-deal fallout. That's the only thing at stake with Corker-Cardin/Menendez.

Everything else is just noise.

Posted by: DrewM. at 09:59 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 2/3 not 3/4
and Foist!

Posted by: This is a Faux News Alert at May 05, 2015 10:01 AM (hKyl0)

2 El segundo!

Posted by: This is a Faux News Alert at May 05, 2015 10:02 AM (hKyl0)

3 Trifecta?

Posted by: This is a Faux News Alert at May 05, 2015 10:02 AM (hKyl0)

4 Things you never hear any more...not even from the Iranians:

"The Iranian nuclear program is exclusivley peaceful."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:03 AM (659DL)

5 Think of the Status of Forces Agreement George W. Bush signed with Iraq. That didn't go to the Senate because everything in it he committed the US to (like troop dispositions and levels) was in his power as President to set unilaterally.

This Iran deal is different from traditional arms control treaties with say, Russia. In those treaties the terms of the agreements placed limits on things like the number of nuclear warheads the US will produce. That's not something a President determines by himself. Congress sets those limits in defense spending and authorization bills.

Drew, these two statements seem to contradict each other. Troop dispositions and levels are a function of DoD spending; something specifically left to congress. Did I miss something?

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:05 AM (60Vyp)

6 I would like the top headlines post to be over 200 comments before putting up a new post. But alas not my blog.

Posted by: Cruzinator at May 05, 2015 10:05 AM (mt2jL)

7 Man, it's gonna be like, SO.AWESOME. when those perfidious Israelis get nuked!!

Oh, wait........did I just say that??

Well, at least I got the socialist society I've always dreamed of..........so, there's that.

Posted by: "Jewish" Democrat at May 05, 2015 10:05 AM (8E9QA)

8 It's all arguably a violation of their oaths to defend the Constitution, but that's nothing new.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at May 05, 2015 10:06 AM (go6ud)

9 Posted by: Cruzinator at May 05, 2015 10:05 AM (mt2jL)

You're new around here.....

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 05, 2015 10:06 AM (Zu3d9)

10 Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:07 AM (kff5f)

11 Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:07 AM (kff5f)

12 1 hour left to get your free biscuit tacos.

That is all.

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 05, 2015 10:08 AM (fWAjv)

13 Fine, Drew. Can't argue your points.

But if Choom Boy had been removed from office for the "high crimes and misdemeanors" he has committed -- not to mention the metric fuckton of felonies -- this would not be an issue. Were he sitting in a jail cell as he so thoroughly deserves to do, none of his caving to Iran or other terrorist regimes would matter.

Thank you, Poppin' Fresh. President Too Big to Impeach wins again.

Posted by: MrScribbler at May 05, 2015 10:08 AM (P8YHq)

14 Troop dispositions and levels are a function of DoD spending; something specifically left to congress. Did I miss something?

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:05 AM (60Vyp)

Total troop levels for the entire military is something Congress must set. How those troops are positioned and deployed around a war zone is something a President, as Commander in Chief, controls.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:08 AM (wdXFj)

15 >>The reason this isn't a treaty requiring the Senate "consent" with a two-thirds vote. Nothing Obama is promising to do in the agreement requires a change in US law or binds Congress to any actions.

Exactly.

I still think this is something you don't just do show votes on, you do everything you can to try and stop it even if the odds are against you. Iran getting nukes is going to fundamentally change the dynamic in the middle east and arm an incredibly unstable region filled with suicidal freaks with wmds.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 05, 2015 10:09 AM (g1DWB)

16 In before the GOPe apologists ?

Posted by: ScoggDog at May 05, 2015 10:09 AM (B1ik8)

17 If I read what Drew wrote correctly, and I think I did, then I agree with him. Do NOT pass the corker bullshit that does absolutely nothing. Pass a real bill that the Dems shoot down or Fredo vetos. LET THEM OWN IT AND RUN ON IT.

Do NOT be a party to this farce. Have a little pride Rhinos

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:11 AM (rDqRv)

18 Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:05 AM (60Vyp) Hide posts from (60Vyp)

GW had the AUMF. So the DOD spending was sort of baked in the cake.

But, yes, Drew could have been a bit more clear on that. GW didn't have the authority as President, he had the authority as Commander-in-Chief with an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:12 AM (kff5f)

19 President Too Big to Impeach wins again.

Please check the numbers in the Senate and get back to me.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:12 AM (659DL)

20 Legislation by Congress designed to change the law is a non-starter.

This is why we fail.

Posted by: eman at May 05, 2015 10:13 AM (MQEz6)

21 The Corker Bill ties the hands of future Presidents. Like all Corker originated crap (increase gas taxes, trade authority) its a cover your ass/reduce responsibility/give more power to government move.

THe man needs to be primaried.

Posted by: Brendan at May 05, 2015 10:13 AM (8YVZT)

22
Please check the numbers in the Senate and get back to me.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:12 AM (659DL)

We might have the numbers to pass a meaningful bill but we do NOT have the numbers to override a Veto.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:13 AM (rDqRv)

23 2 El segundo!
Posted by: This is a Faux News Alert at May 05, 2015 10:02 AM (hKyl0)

I left my wallet there.

Posted by: A Tribe Called Quest at May 05, 2015 10:14 AM (2Ojst)

24 Do NOT be a party to this farce. Have a little pride Rhinos

This.

Well, accept the "RINOs" part. Because, as I've said many times, it's those of us who come to places like this who are the RINOs- the "true" Republicans are the Mitch McConnells and John Boehners.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:14 AM (kff5f)

25
Boy, Geller is right!

https://goo.gl/SD7lC2

Posted by: Bruce J at May 05, 2015 10:14 AM (iQIUe)

26 This is why we fail.

The reason we fail in this particular instance is the cynical fecklessness from Corker and others.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:15 AM (659DL)

27 Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:08 AM

I don't disagree with that Drew. My point is that the ability to fund troop distribution is a function of Congress. It has long been the practice of Congress to hamstring a president by refusing to fund his folly.

And clearly, this 'deal', I prefer to call it appeasement and cooperation, is bad for the US, bad for the region, and bad for the world in general. Nothing good will come of a nuclear armed Iran.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:15 AM (60Vyp)

28 Maybe you can't override a veto, but you can always force a veto to occur.

Doing so is not worth nothing.

Posted by: eman at May 05, 2015 10:16 AM (MQEz6)

29 The reason we fail in this particular instance is the cynical fecklessness from Corker and others.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:15 AM (659DL)

Yup. I am starting to hate them all except for a select few like Senator Cruz

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:16 AM (rDqRv)

30 17 NGU got it right there.

Posted by: Golfman at May 05, 2015 10:16 AM (48QDY)

31 Posted by: eman at May 05, 2015 10:16 AM (MQEz6

This.

Give them no cover. Make the Progressives own their own policies. Make them own their own failures.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:16 AM (kff5f)

32 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:12 AM (kff5f)

That's nonsensical.

There's no separate office of "Commander in Chief". Everything a President does under Article II of the Constitution is as President.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:17 AM (wdXFj)

33 So... the only "win" here is if we maneuver things right, when Iran blows Israel off the map, we get to blame the Democrats?

Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:18 AM (TOk1P)

34 Remember the sequester stupidity and how it played out? And how we correctly predicted it at the time?

This is like that. Only with nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:18 AM (659DL)

35 Allen ... I always like that point when you make it ... I'm the friggin' RINO. Not them.

So how do I self identify ? Libertarian ... except I don't smoke and i want closed borders. Conservative ? I don't think so ... since my social views trend toward minding my own business and I'm not very religious.

Maybe I should just stick with Asshole.

Posted by: ScoggDog at May 05, 2015 10:18 AM (B1ik8)

36 Please check the numbers in the Senate and get back to me.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:12 AM

You never know unless you try. The surrender-eating cheese monkeys of the GOPe started waving the white flag (sorry) back in 2008 when Choom Boy first announced his intentions. They haven't shown a hint of spine since.

Personally, I would have much more respect for the gutless trough-lappers in D.C. if they had ever shown the slightest tendency to put the good of the country (which includes supporting and enforcing its laws) ahead of cheap-ass political calculation and "reaching across the aisle."

Posted by: MrScribbler at May 05, 2015 10:18 AM (P8YHq)

37 I've read the waiver provisions and it most certainly does not give the SCOAMF the power to simply waive away any sanctions unilaterally.

Again the useless pricks just give up power at the drop of a hat.

Useless cunts!

Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2015 10:19 AM (bckL9)

38 Val Jal born in Iran.

What else needs to be said? OK, head of CIA is also a Mohammedan.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:20 AM (0FSuD)

39 Posted by: MrScribbler at May 05, 2015 10:18 AM (P8YHq)

try? that takes too much energy away from lying to us so we vote for them

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 05, 2015 10:20 AM (0O7c5)

40 Cinco de Mayo, drink on every post ending in a Five.

Is it too early?

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:21 AM (0FSuD)

41
Again the useless pricks just give up power at the drop of a hat.

Useless cunts!
Posted by: Kreplach at May 05, 2015 10:19 AM (bckL9)

So they're useless hermaphrodites?

Posted by: Insomniac at May 05, 2015 10:21 AM (2Ojst)

42 So... the only "win" here is if we maneuver things right, when Iran blows Israel off the map, we get to blame the Democrats?
Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:18 AM (TOk1P)

NO and that is NOT a win and we have to stop sacrificing Israel on that Alter ( although I know your not being serious about that). But the WIN is that we make the Dems run on THEIR policy as the Middle East goes down the crapper partially because of them.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:22 AM (rDqRv)

43 There's no separate office of "Commander in Chief". Everything a President does under Article II of the Constitution is as President.

It's not nonsensical, it's highlighting a specific function of the President. I was defending you, you moronic nerf.

The President is given the power of the Commander-in-Chief, *but* he can only exercise it within Constitutional bounds- including little things like not engaging in wars without Congress's say-so.

The reason the President could set troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan is that he had AUMF - *not* simply because he was the President. Nothing inherent to the President allows him to start wars, nor deploy US troops to an active war-zone. That requires Congressional say-so.

Now, W *had* that Congressional say-so, so he was good-to-go, but (as COJH mentions) that's not really clear from the way you wrote those two paragraphs. The two paragraphs seem to indicate that on his own say-so any President could engage in acts of War just because he's the Commander-in-Chief, and that simply isn't so.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:22 AM (kff5f)

44 My point is that the ability to fund troop distribution is a function of Congress. It has long been the practice of Congress to hamstring a president by refusing to fund his folly.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:15 AM (60Vyp)

Sorry to be blunt but you're simply wrong.

Congress could not pass funding bills down to the unit level based upon the location they are deployed to. I mean they could but it would be unconstitutional.

Also, name one time Congress has defunded troops in the field.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:23 AM (wdXFj)

45 Mexican maid says Cinco de Mayo is total BS in Mexico.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:23 AM (0FSuD)

46 There's no separate office of "Commander in Chief". Everything a President does under Article II of the Constitution is as President.

-----

I'll let AllenG clarify himself - but I think he was saying that you don't simply have all authority as CIC. Once a declaration of war is made or it times of "war" your CIC powers "expand" for lack of a better word. But in times of "peace" the President's CIC powers shrink.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:23 AM (gmeXX)

47
Republicans = weirdo chinese zookeper
obama = little monkey's ass
the peanut = ??

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 05, 2015 10:23 AM (Ng9V+)

48 Val Jal born in Iran.

What else needs to be said? OK, head of CIA is also a Mohammedan.
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:20 AM (0FSuD)

Yeah but that has been overplayed. It's not really a valid point. Her father was working there. That ferret does not worship Iran or islam, only the progressive commie left. That is her religion

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:23 AM (rDqRv)

49 If Congress wants to but can't do anything about this, we are frakked.

If Congress can but doesn't want to do anything about this, we are frakked.

This ship is taking on water pretty damn fast.

Posted by: eman at May 05, 2015 10:24 AM (MQEz6)

50
I guess The Peanut would be the USA post-obama.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 05, 2015 10:24 AM (Ng9V+)

51 try? that takes too much energy away from lying to us so we vote for them

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 05, 2015 10:20 AM

Funny how that never seems to bother teh Corpulent Captain and the other eunuchs of the "conservative" media as much as daring to suggest that the well-being of the nation is more important than Good Optics and Fairness.

Sometimes, one can win even when they lose. But if they do nothing, losing is guaranteed.

Posted by: MrScribbler at May 05, 2015 10:24 AM (P8YHq)

52
President Too Big to Impeach wins again.

Please check the numbers in the Senate and get back to me.
Posted by: Circa

1974 - Congress that forced resignation of Nixon under threat of impeachment
Senate - [D] 57 seat majority
House - [D] 235 seat majority

2015
Senate - [R] 54 seat majority
House - [R] 244 seat majority

Close enough for jazz.

But the current GOP either agrees with The O's actions or lacks the sack to oppose them.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 05, 2015 10:25 AM (kdS6q)

53 Sometimes, one can win even when they lose. But if they do nothing, losing is guaranteed.

Sometimes, losing is the only way to win.

Posted by: Zombie William Travis at May 05, 2015 10:25 AM (kff5f)

54 If Congress wants to but can't do anything about this, we are frakked.

If Congress can but doesn't want to do anything about this, we are frakked.

This ship is taking on water pretty damn fast.
Posted by: eman at May 05, 2015 10:24 AM (MQEz6)

Yup, but that was inevitable as soon as Fredo got elected. Elections have consequences. Sigh

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:25 AM (rDqRv)

55 NO and that is NOT a win and we have to stop
sacrificing Israel on that Alter ( although I know your not being
serious about that). But the WIN is that we make the Dems run on THEIR
policy as the Middle East goes down the crapper partially because of
them.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:22 AM (rDqRv)

No, I'm being dead serious. What in essence we as a nation are doing, is giving Iran the green light to produce nuclear weapons. Which they will use. To blow Israel off the map. So, the Republicans in Washington are doing what they are doing, and in essence what we are being told now is that we can't stop this Iran deal from happening, the best we can do is make sure the LiVs know it was the Democrats who made it happen.

That's our "win." I'm not calling it a win, I'm asking the question: is that our strategy now? Let Iran have the bomb, and do it in a way that lets us use it in the next election cycle?

Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:25 AM (TOk1P)

56 >> I've read the waiver provisions and it most certainly does not give the SCOAMF the power to simply waive away any sanctions unilaterally.

Read it again.

>>Right now, the President has statutory authority to relax some Iran sanctions, and he has the constitutional authority to try to negotiate with foreign nations any deal he desires.

That's Ted Cruz's take.

http://tinyurl.com/m7z6fnj

Obama has already relaxed some sanctions so its pretty much academic at this point.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 05, 2015 10:26 AM (g1DWB)

57 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - TrueCon at May 05, 2015 10:22

Concur. I don't think setting sanctions (or lifting sanctions that were imposed by congress) is something the president can unilaterally do. Unless you're the Afurmatif Axshun Preznit and your congress is infested with a feckless invertebrate GOP.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:26 AM (60Vyp)

58 If Congress wants to but can't do anything about this, we are frakked.
If Congress can but doesn't want to do anything about this, we are frakked.

This ship is taking on water pretty damn fast.
Posted by: eman

Quick! Rearrange deck chairs!

Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 05, 2015 10:27 AM (9PlD2)

59 My point is that the ability to fund troop distribution is a function of Congress. It has long been the practice of Congress to hamstring a president by refusing to fund his folly.
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:15 AM (60Vyp)

Sorry to be blunt but you're simply wrong.

Congress could not pass funding bills down to the unit level based upon the location they are deployed to. I mean they could but it would be unconstitutional.

Also, name one time Congress has defunded troops in the field.

----

I agree that Congress is relunctant to do this for political reasons. And perhaps it would be unconstitutional to do it down to a unit level. But Congress has all the power in the world to defund and/or fund for specific purposes. Of course the President has the power to ignore Congress. Congress could pass such unit levels and if the President ignores them, then Congress could defund the entire operation. A political game most (all) Congresses avoid.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:27 AM (gmeXX)

60 Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:25 AM (TOk1P)

My point is people here have to stop using the total destruction of Israel as a tool to prove their points. I get your basic point.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:27 AM (rDqRv)

61 If only it included some highway spending in every state it would the Platonic Ideal of Senate bills.

That is a True Fact is what that is.

Also, and I could be less right than I usually am about this, but I thought one of the issues is that some of the sanctions being waived are in violation of the current laws sanctioning Iran.

Posted by: alexthechick - Oh please intervene SMOD at May 05, 2015 10:27 AM (mf5HN)

62 45 Mexican maid says Cinco de Mayo is total BS in Mexico.

Its only big in Puebla in Mexico. Which is where the battle took place.

Posted by: buzzion at May 05, 2015 10:28 AM (zt+N6)

63 Meanwhile with all the argument here about what exactly are the CICs powers, sequestration and PC are killing the Military in so many ways

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:28 AM (rDqRv)

64 After years of disappointment, I never would have thought I'd say today that I am glad I don't have kids. I look at my 6 yr old neighbor's kid and sigh. She will live in an unstable nuclear world and will probably witness an atomic detonation in a major western city.

Posted by: Russkilitlover at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (fWqNF)

65 sequestration and PC are killing the Military in so many ways

-----

If PC is killing the military, then I would argue that we should cut the military even more. Why fund and increase a military who has its current purpose to advance social agendas. The brass who is rising are the type of brass that will need to be cut when the shit really hits the fan. Might as well cut them now and not let them fester.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (gmeXX)

66 Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:27 AM (gmeXX)

Oh I agree Congress *could* do it (cut funds for an entire war). But for him to say, "It has long been the practice of Congress to hamstring a president by refusing to fund his folly" makes it sound like it has happened on a fairly regular basis.

I can't think of a case where it's ever actually been done.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (2OdVw)

67 My point is people here have to stop using the total
destruction of Israel as a tool to prove their points. I get your basic
point.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:27 AM (rDqRv)

I'm not using it to prove the point. I'm predicting it as an outcome of what we are doing. Not hyperbole.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (TOk1P)

68 25

Boy, Geller is right!

https://goo.gl/SD7lC2

Posted by: Bruce J at May 05, 2015 10:14 AM (iQIUe)

What a slap down! Thanks. I hope she has security.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:32 AM (0FSuD)

69 sequestration and PC are killing the Military in so many ways

-----

If PC is killing the military, then I would argue that we should cut the military even more. Why fund and increase a military who has its current purpose to advance social agendas. The brass who is rising are the type of brass that will need to be cut when the shit really hits the fan. Might as well cut them now and not let them fester.
Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (gmeXX)

I don't surrender

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:32 AM (rDqRv)

70 I'm not using it to prove the point. I'm predicting it as an outcome of what we are doing. Not hyperbole.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (TOk1P)

I get it, but for those of us with friends and family living there, it rubs us the wrong way.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:33 AM (rDqRv)

71 Its only big in Puebla in Mexico. Which is where the battle took place.

Posted by: buzzion at May 05, 2015 10:28 AM

These days, I suspect the good citizens of Puebla are more likely to celebrate the day VW established an assembly plant there.

Posted by: MrScribbler at May 05, 2015 10:33 AM (P8YHq)

72 But the current GOP either agrees with The O's actions or lacks the sack to oppose them.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 05, 2015 10:25 AM (kdS6q)

Yeah, right same thing. You forgetting about us?

Posted by: MSM at May 05, 2015 10:33 AM (0FSuD)

73 I don't surrender

-----

I'd call it retreating to fight another day when times are more favorable (i.e., when you have a different CIC).

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:34 AM (gmeXX)

74 I couldn't give a damn how the GOP fares in all this. I only care about the best steps for we the people. Since Obama wants Iran to get a nukes -- bomb shelters and potassium iodide? Also stock up on arms and ammunition when we emerge to fight super mutants and deathclaws.

Posted by: Achilles at May 05, 2015 10:34 AM (TpeIH)

75 I'm not using it to prove the point. I'm predicting it as an outcome of what we are doing. Not hyperbole.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (TOk1P)

I get it, but for those of us with friends and family living there, it rubs us the wrong way.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:33 AM (rDqRv)

I would imagine so. It rubs me the wrong way too.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 05, 2015 10:34 AM (TOk1P)

76 I drive a truck over the road I have nothing against increase spending on highways in every state

Posted by: Saddam at May 05, 2015 10:34 AM (bgrP8)

77 I'd call it retreating to fight another day when times are more favorable (i.e., when you have a different CIC).
Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:34 AM (gmeXX)

yeah but that is not how things work, especially on Capitol Hill. Give up funding and you never get it back. And rebuilding something is much more expensive than maintianing something. I understand your frustration, I am frustrated more than you. But in the real world walking away from a problem can have devastating results- like how we are walking away from the Middle East

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:37 AM (rDqRv)

78 Aren't US sanctions against Iran - not the UN sanctions regime, but US ones - in force due to a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by a President? I seem to remember some R member of the House making that point a week or two ago.

Posted by: Emmett Milbarge at May 05, 2015 10:37 AM (nFdGS)

79
76 I drive a truck over the road I have nothing against increase spending on highways in every state
Posted by: Saddam at May 05, 2015 10:34 AM (bgrP

Its so cute you think that the increased spending would actually be spent on highways, or that it would improve them at all.

Posted by: buzzion at May 05, 2015 10:37 AM (zt+N6)

80
Roads and bridges. Cops and firemen. New schools.

ALL BULLSHIT.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 05, 2015 10:37 AM (Ng9V+)

81 Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM

Drew, seriously... Nothing I wrote explicitly or implicitly stated or suggested that the Congress would use the power of the purse to restrain the CIC's deployment of troops at the unit or at the command level. You're making a straw man argument.

It is well within the power of congress to stymie presidential foreign policy using the budget process. If memory serves me correctly, there was a recent thread over the weekend in which we beat the Democrats and their lapdog media soundly over that tactic as it was used in Vietnam.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:38 AM (60Vyp)

82 Being a leftist must be so damn easy. You don't actually have to have any principles or values.

Posted by: Lauren at May 05, 2015 10:39 AM (MYCIw)

83 Posted by: JackStraw at May 05, 2015 10:26 AM (g1DWB)

The first mistake was not fighting that interpretation of the waiver power. Did Obama even follow the congressional notification requirement on the limited power it did give him?

Posted by: Cruzinator at May 05, 2015 10:39 AM (mt2jL)

84 Being a leftist must be so damn easy. You don't actually have to have any principles or values.
Posted by: Lauren at May 05, 2015 10:39 AM (MYCIw)

Or consistency in your positions.

Posted by: DangerGirl at May 05, 2015 10:40 AM (iUBwE)

85 Did Obama even follow the congressional notification requirement on the limited power it did give him?

Posted by: Cruzinator at May 05, 2015 10:39 AM (mt2jL)

Your so cutie. I am the power.

Posted by: BHO at May 05, 2015 10:41 AM (S+el1)

86 yeah but that is not how things work, especially on Capitol Hill. Give up funding and you never get it back. And rebuilding something is much more expensive than maintianing something. I understand your frustration, I am frustrated more than you. But in the real world walking away from a problem can have devastating results- like how we are walking away from the Middle East

-----

And those are good counterpoints. I'm just making an argument. I would counter with this:

1. I think we have already walked away from the mideast. It wasn't my preference, but the country choose that option in voting for Obama.

2. Our country has showed in the past an ability to mobilize quickly when the times called for it. I have faith we can do it again. Again, I'd rather we just kept the "peace through strength" thing going - but that was when our military was for military and defense purposes. Not to advance an agenda.

3. I want to limit the damage done by officers who think of agenda first and defense second - the best way is to limit their numbers.

All that being said, I can certainly understand the argument to weather the storm.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:41 AM (gmeXX)

87
I am no longer disappointed in the Republicans.

How can a group that I wrote-off a long time ago disappoint me?

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 05, 2015 10:42 AM (Ng9V+)

88 Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (2OdVw)

You forgot about those pics of helicopters being pushed off our ships?

Posted by: Cruzinator at May 05, 2015 10:42 AM (mt2jL)

89 >>The first mistake was not fighting that interpretation of the waiver power. Did Obama even follow the congressional notification requirement on the limited power it did give him?

I'm not sure they really could have fought it. I've also read the legislation and it seems pretty clear that Obama or any president does have some authority to waive sanctions based on his own judgement. I don't think many people saw a president as lawless and down right anti-American when the power was given.

And no, I don't think Obama gave the proper notice just as he didn't when he released the terrorists from GITMO for Bergdahl. Because he's Obama.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 05, 2015 10:43 AM (g1DWB)

90
Sep 16, Mexican Independence Day is the big holiday there and here. In LA, there is a big parade, everyone gets drunk, and then goes home and beats their wives, gfs, and mothers of their children. The cops are busy and the courts are over flowing afterwards.

Posted by: Bruce J at May 05, 2015 10:44 AM (iQIUe)

91 I hate to be all downery here, but Iranians are not really our biggest problem here. It is Sunni that have the death wish and they think they - "the bad guys"- can FORCE or at least "grease the way" a "second coming" with violence. The twelver's - dominate Shia - think the second coming is ordained not forced.

Iran is not going to blow Israel off the map. They know Israel does not play with that.. and would turn them into dust. I do not know much but, this shit is WAY more complicated than just Iran is a bad guy.. Jihadi Sunni? Weeelll.. different story..

I know a real Conservative (on our side) Islamic scholar - his son and mine play on the football team together - and he seems to think the all of this is failure theater and the Repubs are stupid for saying ignorant things that he knows they know are not true, because he has told them (he is paid to consult them). They are just playing politics. He is really disgusted with the way both parties are acting.

Btw.. Football practice is interesting to say the least!

Posted by: catman at May 05, 2015 10:44 AM (6Xfzi)

92 2. Our country has showed in the past an ability to mobilize quickly when the times called for it. I have faith we can do it again.

We no longer have the industrial base to do that, nor the luxury that the oceans used to afford us of time

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:45 AM (rDqRv)

93 Our country has showed in the past an ability to mobilize quickly when the times called for it.

About that.

The next war will be different and it will be over in weeks. No, I'm not confident that we will prevail.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:45 AM (659DL)

94 We no longer have the industrial base to do that

-----

I respectfully disagree with that statement.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:46 AM (gmeXX)

95 Posted by: catman at May 05, 2015 10:44 AM (6Xfzi)

yeah no, with all due respect for some guy from a football game

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (rDqRv)

96 The next war will be different and it will be over in weeks. No, I'm not confident that we will prevail.

----

How do you think it will go?

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (gmeXX)

97 Hahaha! The UK papers refer the election as "knife-edge" which is funny considering how stabby they are over there.

Posted by: Bruce J at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (iQIUe)

98 The way I see this topic, the gist of it is that the GOP leadership is a case study for abject leadership failure at the tactical and the strategic levels. That obvious condition is just being obscured by the usual excuse making and pillow biting over whether or not anyone will actually call them on it.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (60Vyp)

99 All of us down at the Brattleboro Women's Reproductive Health Choice
Clinic think President Obama should give them some money for their people and then when they have enough for the people they will become friends. They hate us because of what Bush did and if Presdent Obama was to do this then they would love us and him as we do.

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (Sd++4)

100 O/T...in fear of the barrel, I won't try to link from phone. But Drudge has a link to an article about blank sunspot activity and one paragraph talks about how this may lead to global coolin a la the Little Ice Age.

Confounded AGW confouders most profoundly confounded.

Posted by: Russkilitlover at May 05, 2015 10:49 AM (fWqNF)

101 The next war will be different and it will be over in weeks. No, I'm not confident that we will prevail.
----
How do you think it will go?

I'll just say two things:

1. We haven't really shot our way into a hostile location at the end of extended LOCs since Inchon.

2. Every gasoline pump in America is hooked to the Internet. We have massive, hard-to-defend domestic vulnerabilities with military implications.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:51 AM (659DL)

102 52
President Too Big to Impeach wins again.

Please check the numbers in the Senate and get back to me.
Posted by: Circa

1974 - Congress that forced resignation of Nixon under threat of impeachment
Senate - [D] 57 seat majority
House - [D] 235 seat majority

2015
Senate - [R] 54 seat majority
House - [R] 244 seat majority

Close enough for jazz.

But the current GOP either agrees with The O's actions or lacks the sack to oppose them.

George Soros is fanning these inner city riots, and I believe the Ferguson and Baltimore and Independent police needed reforming, to threaten worse if Obama is removed from office.

Obama has been actively working to legitimize Iran's nuclear program, aid them in securing regional hegemony and lifting sanctions against them since he took office in 2008. I keep reading propaganda in comment sections that Iran is our new ally against ISIS and we deserve this for reinstating the Shah.

It all comes down to money and the oligarch's game of Risk, actual oligarchs like those that donate to the Clinton library, not boogeymen like the Kochs, who are private citizens within their rights to participate in the electoral process. Obama is a tool of very bad people who have infiltrated our government, and they likely own our Congress, too. Anyone can see this.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 10:52 AM (nCKKS)

103
Drew, you of all people should know its futile to give Repubs any recommendations on what they should do. They will give Oblahblah everything he wants making sure that they themselves are the ones who will get any blame.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 05, 2015 10:53 AM (ODxAs)

104 How do you think it will go?

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (gmeXX)

Learn Mandarin.

Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:53 AM (0FSuD)

105 Posted by: catman at May 05, 2015 10:44 AM (6Xfzi)

My mother goes to a hairdresser whose son is friends with a CIA Middle East analyst who says Iran is the main threat.

Posted by: Cruzinator at May 05, 2015 10:54 AM (mt2jL)

106 How do you think it will go?

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (gmeXX)

Learn Mandarin.
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:53 AM (0FSuD)

More like learn caveman and Neanderthal

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:55 AM (rDqRv)

107 1974 - Congress that forced resignation of Nixon under threat of impeachment

Context: The resolution to create the Senate Select Committee on Watergate passed 96-0.

Nixon's support in the Senate was at single digits when he resigned. I cannot envision a scenario where Obama falls below 37.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 10:55 AM (659DL)

108 How do you think it will go?

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:47 AM (gmeXX)

Learn Mandarin.
Posted by: Nip Sip at May 05, 2015 10:53 AM (0FSuD)

More like learn caveman and Neanderthal

------

Why wouldn't we just crush our enemies? Do we not have that power and capability?

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:55 AM (gmeXX)

109 How do you think it will go?

I think we'll lose about 100 years of economic, social, and tech evolution pretty quickly.

And I estimate, without that stuff, at least a quarter of the American Public will simply die in less than thirty days.

Posted by: ScoggDog at May 05, 2015 10:57 AM (B1ik8)

110
Why wouldn't we just crush our enemies? Do we not have that power and capability?
Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:55 AM (gmeXX)

You want to launch a first strike? hey I'm not really against that, but that is what your talking about?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 10:57 AM (rDqRv)

111
Nixon had a leftist media bringing everything to a boiling point. Obastard has the leftist media burying and excusing everything. If Nixon was a Dem, the story would have died.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 05, 2015 10:57 AM (ODxAs)

112 "Obama is a tool of very bad people who have infiltrated our government, and they likely own our Congress, too. Anyone can see this."

Assumes that people are paying attention and have some knowledge of history, but I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at May 05, 2015 10:58 AM (go6ud)

113 Why wouldn't we just crush our enemies? Do we not have that power and capability?
Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:55 AM (gmeXX)

You want to launch a first strike? hey I'm not really against that, but that is what your talking about?

-----

Not really - not right now. I'm just curious why that wouldn't be the result in any conceivable and likely war.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:58 AM (gmeXX)

114 Alright, Morons... Here is they guy..

http://tinyurl.com/nq9z2ck

Timothy Furnish PHD

Posted by: catman at May 05, 2015 10:59 AM (mgGNA)

115 You want to launch a first strike? hey I'm not really against that, but that is what your talking about?

-----

Not really - not right now. I'm just curious why that wouldn't be the result in any conceivable and likely war.
Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:58 AM (gmeXX)

Well then I suggest you not advocate cutting the MIlitary, because our Nuclear Forces are falling apart also and desperately need to be upgraded

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 11:00 AM (rDqRv)

116 66 Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:27 AM (gmeXX)

Oh I agree Congress *could* do it (cut funds for an entire war). But for him to say, "It has long been the practice of Congress to hamstring a president by refusing to fund his folly" makes it sound like it has happened on a fairly regular basis.

I can't think of a case where it's ever actually been done.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 05, 2015 10:31 AM (2OdVw)

-----------------

Vietnam.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2015 11:00 AM (co+55)

117 The government might (or might not) still have the power and capability, but the will to use those things ?
404 Not Found.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at May 05, 2015 11:00 AM (go6ud)

118 The way I see it, at this point republicans have done enough to add some teeth to congressional action, including voting on an amendment that would require the bill to be considered a treaty. That amendment was voted down. If I were McConnell, I'd get every republican member on the steps for a big press conference and say "President Obama has said this isn't a treaty, so fine, you have it Mr. President. You have decided on your own to do this. Our party will not be connected to this awful deal in any way, shape, or form. This is on you.......SCOAMF."

Posted by: Mainah at May 05, 2015 11:01 AM (659DL)

119 Why wouldn't we just crush our enemies? Do we not have that power and capability?

Not anymore. Or the political will power.

Posted by: BHO at May 05, 2015 11:01 AM (S+el1)

120 Alright, Morons... Here is they guy..

http://tinyurl.com/nq9z2ck

Timothy Furnish PHD
Posted by: catman at May 05, 2015 10:59 AM (mgGNA)

Oh well that changes everything. ????

I mean your kidding right?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 11:02 AM (rDqRv)

121 >>Vietnam.

Didn't happen until Nixon had already removed the troops.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 05, 2015 11:03 AM (g1DWB)

122 More like learn caveman and Neanderthal

Like Han Solo, shoot first.

Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 05, 2015 11:04 AM (cp4Cl)

123
Nixon's support in the Senate was at single digits when he resigned.
Posted by: Circa

Exactly. Although the Democrats didn't have the votes to impeach on a party line vote, and I don't know if anyone outside the FDR era Ds ever had that big a majority, they worked the plot and got Nixon so toxic that enough of his own party were willing to oust him. Landslide to out the door in less than two years.

Compare with "Nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency" and so on.

Probably on the ol Won't fight/Can't fight divide on this one, as is wont.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 05, 2015 11:04 AM (kdS6q)

124 <<what's the best way to hang an Iran nuke around the collective necks of the Democrats?>>

Demand answer from them when Tel Aviv is wiped off the map. Seriously, all the wrangling that's being done and all the posturing and political maneuvering... this is the kind of grandstanding shit that's done during a trade bill or an education reform bill.

But this is a bill in which actual, literal NUKES ARE ON THE LINE!

How the fuck are we conducting this as a typical foreign relations matter?

There are NUKES involved!

NUKES!

Posted by: SGTYork at May 05, 2015 11:04 AM (/yNLK)

125
"Iran is not going to blow Israel off the map. They know Israel does not play with that.. and would turn them into dust."

The argument that Iran needs nukes as a safeguard is BS. Nobody has threatened them. Israel's are a safeguard.

Iran launched rockets at Israel every day. They killed our soldiers in Iraq and actively worked to destabilize the region to their benefit. Even now they are playing a double game with us, pretending to "fight ISIS" while they spread chaos throughout Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran's threat to wipe Israel off the map was not an idle one. They blew up a Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires in the 90s for no reason but they believed it was an Israeli intelligence base, and they want full control of the Middle East. They will nuke Jerusalem to assert their superiority in the Muslim, prove their dominance over the West, and because they are crazy motherfucking theocrats who believe suicide gets you to paradise therefore MAD is a feature not a bug.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 11:05 AM (nCKKS)

126 >>> Not really - not right now. I'm just curious why that wouldn't be the result in any conceivable and likely war.

Could be. Depends if they want to do a Reichstag type of thing to get things rolling or not. But .... war is inevitable at this point, I think. And widespread at that.

Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 05, 2015 11:05 AM (3ZtZW)

127
Again, people giving the R's advice on what to do, I used to do that, then I realized they are not who I thought they were and they are not on my side.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (ODxAs)

128 Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2015 11:00 AM (co+55)

Congress pulled the funding for the South Vietnamese but Nixon had already wound down the US war.

Posted by: DrewM at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (CNua6)

129 Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 10:58 AM (gmeXX)

Haven't you been listening to the active military people here the last couple of years?! No money for training, no usable new ships, no usable new planes, and the EPA most certainly *has* nearly completely destroyed our manufacturing base. All those closed factories can't simply be gotten running in a heartbeat.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (GDulk)

130 Just occurred to me:

Obama's handling this negotiation like Floyd Mayweather in the ring.

Posted by: SGTYork at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (/yNLK)

131 Nixon hated persons of color as portrayed with his dealings with Martin looter King and other persons of color during the 1970's. bush's father was also invovled with hurting persons of color because he was in charge of the CIA that was hunting down persons of color to stop them from reproducing.

Posted by: Mary Clogginstein from Brattleboro, VT at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (Sd++4)

132 Excuse me, but I think you missed the point on this Drew, which is to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. The point is not to blame democrats for allowing Iran to get the bomb.

The bill's use is not to prevent the Iran deal. As you point out (very well, so nice job there), the President does not need congressional approval to get this done.

What the bill will do is give Congressional Committees specific oversight power. This will increase the possibility that Congress will uncover future dealings the Executive. That, in turn, will give Congress ammo to overturn the deal in the future if it's necessary.

Posted by: Stone at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (qRV1m)

133
I can't think of a case where it's ever actually been done.
Posted by: DrewM.

Vietnam.
Posted by: Soona

80s. Nicaragua and El Salvador. Also probably some of the second front Vietnam War areas like Cambodia and Laos.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 05, 2015 11:07 AM (kdS6q)

134
You know what Iran is gonna do first?

Iran is gonna install missiles in Cuba. Mark my words and remember who said it first.

obama is gonna allow Iran to park missiles at Cuba.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 05, 2015 11:07 AM (Ng9V+)

135 Well then I suggest you not advocate cutting the MIlitary, because our Nuclear Forces are falling apart also and desperately need to be upgraded

----

Hey I'm all for spending money on nuclear forces. But even if military budgets were cut, I'm not sure why the result would be different. Military budgets can be increased when necessary.

I'm not trying to be difficult. And I'd make the case that we should spend money on nuclear forces. Of course I'd build up the Navy too. But I want the money to be spend with a strategic purpose in mind - not to advance social agendas.

But I'm not worried that the US would lose in a large scale military war. I was just going off the comments to "Learn Mandarin" or "Learn Neanderthal."

I'm not worried about that. Losing our influence in teh world. Yes.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:07 AM (gmeXX)

136 What is stuck in your ass, Never? The guy has a shitty web site.. So? Does that make him wrong? I was just presenting what we THINK we know may be more complicated that we think.. asshole..

Posted by: catman at May 05, 2015 11:08 AM (mgGNA)

137 What the bill will do is give Congressional Committees specific oversight power. This will increase the possibility that Congress will uncover future dealings the Executive. That, in turn, will give Congress ammo to overturn the deal in the future if it's necessary.

Posted by: Stone at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (qRV1m)

Yeah NO. This bill is just a fig leaf for the Senate. It gives them nothing. And it is sweet of you to think fredo will actually give anything of worth to the senate

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 11:08 AM (rDqRv)

138 80s. Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Not so much. AC-130s based in Panama brought the El Salvador rebels to the table. Ortega and his bunch actually lost a couple of elections.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 11:08 AM (659DL)

139 #BringBackOurGirls

214 of them now pregnant

Posted by: RWC - Team BOHICA at May 05, 2015 11:09 AM (fWAjv)

140 Ms. Cloggenstein? I have your weekly case of Peach Schnappes. Put it in the kitchen as usual?

Posted by: Brattleboro Liquors - We deliver! at May 05, 2015 11:10 AM (9K3Nr)

141 post 132 was suppose to read "Future shady dealings"

Posted by: Stone at May 05, 2015 11:10 AM (qRV1m)

142 Iran is gonna install missiles in Cuba.

My money would be on Venezuela, but point taken.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 11:10 AM (659DL)

143 And no, I don't think we have the industrial infrastructure to retool for major war anymore.
A few examples off the top of my head:
- Last lead mine in US closed.
- Power grid that would have to order replacement
big transformers from China.
- We are closing electric generating stations without
replacing their generating capacity.
- A lot of machine tools are no longer made here.
- An awful lot of semiconductors are made offshore.

Just a representative sampling, there are so many more it could make your head spin.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at May 05, 2015 11:10 AM (go6ud)

144 Haven't you been listening to the active military people here the last couple of years?! No money for training, no usable new ships, no usable new planes, and the EPA most certainly *has* nearly completely destroyed our manufacturing base. All those closed factories can't simply be gotten running in a heartbeat.

----

I disagree with some of those premises. But that is not my point. I was simply pushing back on the idea that we will "lose" in the next great military war. I do not agree with that. I'm not saying that as an argument that we have nothing to worry about.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:10 AM (gmeXX)

145 But .... war is inevitable at this point, I think. And widespread at that.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with stick and stones.
-Albert Einstein

Posted by: rickb223 Straight, Conservative Clinger at May 05, 2015 11:11 AM (cp4Cl)

146 I was simply pushing back on the idea that we will "lose" in the next great military war.

I'm not saying that we WILL lose, I'm saying it's not going to be as logistically easy as what we've done over the last 60+ years.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 11:12 AM (659DL)

147 Swiftly these pulled down the walls that their fathers had made them -
The impregnable ramparts of old, they razed and relaid them
As playgrounds of pleasure and leisure, with limitless entries,
And havens of rest for the wastrels where once walked the sentries;
And because there was need of more pay for the shouters and marchers,
They disbanded in face of their foemen their yeomen and archers.
They replied to their well-wishers' fears - to their enemies laughter,
Saying: "Peace! We have fashioned a God Which shall save us hereafter.
We ascribe all dominion to man in his factions conferring,
And have given to numbers the Name of the Wisdom unerring."

Posted by: Brother Cavil, down with Eph 6:12 at May 05, 2015 11:12 AM (DT3rQ)

148
80s. Nicaragua and El Salvador.

Not so much. AC-130s based in Panama brought the El Salvador rebels to the table. Ortega and his bunch actually lost a couple of elections.
Posted by: Circa

There were the Congressional bans on covert CIA+ assistance to the Contras et al. Hence, Iran Contra.

Would have to research to see if there were also bans for overt flags a flying military action.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 05, 2015 11:12 AM (kdS6q)

149 I'm just going to reiterate my point. The gist of this topic is that the GOP leadership is a case study for abject failure at the tactical and the strategic levels.

To suggest that we just bend over and acquiesce to this miserable fucksitck's foreign policy without fighting back is all that needs to be said to prove that point.

And sadly, a whole lot of Americans and people in the ME are gonna suffer and die for that policy.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 11:12 AM (60Vyp)

150 SH You're gonna see bombs dropped over America this time. We've never seen that before, but it's possible with today's technology.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 11:12 AM (nCKKS)

151 what we THINK we know may be more complicated that we think

EVERYTHING is more complicated than we think.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 11:13 AM (659DL)

152 The solution is simple...attach an amendment to the Senate bill requiring Iran to implement a moratorium on death sentences to females and gays in order to have sanctions lifted. Would Obama veto it then?

Posted by: pete at May 05, 2015 11:13 AM (meg+g)

153
WWIII already happened. We lost. It was prosecuted by the media-corporate-boardroom-lobbyists against the peons.

Don't believe me? Look how the world has changed. Look who's in the White House.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 05, 2015 11:14 AM (Ng9V+)

154 You're gonna see bombs dropped over America this time. We've never seen that before, but it's possible with today's technology.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 11:12 AM (nCKKS)

Well at this point more likely missiles, but if we keep degrading our Military, maybe bombs also

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 11:14 AM (rDqRv)

155 Would have to research to see if there were also bans for overt flags a flying military action.

There might have been.

Reagan did it anyway.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 05, 2015 11:14 AM (659DL)

156
The solution is simple...attach an amendment to the Senate bill requiring Iran to implement a moratorium on death sentences to females and gays in order to have sanctions lifted. Would Obama veto it then?
Posted by: pete

"Clever girl..."

That's actually a pretty good idea. What's it doing in here?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 05, 2015 11:15 AM (kdS6q)

157
121 >>Vietnam.

Didn't happen until Nixon had already removed the troops.
Posted by: JackStraw at May 05, 2015 11:03 AM (g1DWB)

----------------------

But there were supposed to be the full force of American air assets to support the South. THAT was what the dems refunded.

As soon as they did that, the NVA started their final offensive.

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2015 11:15 AM (co+55)

158 Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:10 AM (gmeXX)

They *aren't* premises FML, they are *facts* related by people who have to deal with those facts on a routine basis.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at May 05, 2015 11:16 AM (GDulk)

159 >>I disagree with some of those premises. But that is not my point. I was simply pushing back on the idea that we will "lose" in the next great military war. I do not agree with that. I'm not saying that as an argument that we have nothing to worry about.

If Obama is president when a major war breaks out, we will lose. It's not about manufacturing capacity or funding it's about Obama and his pathological belief that the US is responsible for any unrest in the world.

His single biggest campaign issue when he first ran was ending the war in Iraq at any cost. He did and look at the cost. He is abandoning Afghanistan as fast as he can. He never did shit to secure Libya after bombing Qaddafi into submission. He allowed Yemen to disintegrate and turned it over to jihadists. He abandoned Egypt when he didn't like how it turned out.

Obama will not do what is necessary to win because he does not believe in the exceptionalism of our mission. He is on the other side.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 05, 2015 11:16 AM (g1DWB)

160 SH You're gonna see bombs dropped over America this time. We've never seen that before, but it's possible with today's technology.

------

I don't disagree that that is a possibility. And it is quite possible the start of the next great war will be the destruction of all or a major portion of one or more US city(ies).

Again, I was simply curious why someone said to "Learn Mandarin." I want to know what others think will be the outcome of a possible next great war.

I don't think it will be easy, I don't think it will be without casulties. But nor do I think it will end with us on the "losing" end.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:16 AM (gmeXX)

161 Congress specifically denied authorization for the construction of "permenant" military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we had to build really big Embassies and Consulates to hold everyone. The airbase work were "improvements" designed to transfer to the host nation.

Posted by: Jean at May 05, 2015 11:17 AM (ztOda)

162 Defended -- fucking iphone

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2015 11:17 AM (co+55)

163 "If it's necessary"

Posted by: Stone at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM (qRV1m)

Lol.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 11:17 AM (nCKKS)

164 obama is gonna allow Iran to park missiles at Cuba.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 05, 2015 11:07 AM (Ng9V+)

Doesn't have to. Iran already has missiles that can hit all of Europe, Africa and most of Asia. They could base in Venezuela (already have support treaties). Or estimates are that their ICBM's that can reach the U.S. will be ready in less than 2 yrs.

Posted by: wrg500 at May 05, 2015 11:17 AM (S+el1)

165 DEFUNDED!!!

Posted by: Soona at May 05, 2015 11:18 AM (co+55)

166 They *aren't* premises FML, they are *facts* related by people who have to deal with those facts on a routine basis.

-----

I don't have research in front of me. But my understanding is that our manufacturing base is actually quite robust. Kevin Williamson wrote an article on it. Not saying he is right - but he is respected around these parts.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:20 AM (gmeXX)

167 I don't think it will be easy, I don't think it will be without casulties. But nor do I think it will end with us on the "losing" end.
Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:16 AM (gmeXX)

Everyone loses, and BIG, in the next war. It's not about wining or losing. It's about staying so strong, so much stronger than any 3 other opponents, that no one would think of challenging us. Is that expensive and unfair to make America do that? Yeah your damn right it is. But it is cheaper than the alternative

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 11:20 AM (rDqRv)

168 Congress pulled the funding for the South Vietnamese but Nixon had already wound down the US war.

Posted by: DrewM at May 05, 2015 11:06 AM

And why had Nixon 'wound down the US war', Drew? It was because we had forced the communists back to the negotiating table and had a foreign policy effort to arm and support the South Vietnamese so that we could reduce the requirement to use the US military. A foreign policy effort that the Democrats effectively scuttled resulting in the loss of countless lives and the squandering of US military lives.

Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 05, 2015 11:21 AM (60Vyp)

169 I am using my god given right to free speech to anounce: New thread!

Posted by: catman at May 05, 2015 11:21 AM (6Xfzi)

170 bombs dropping in the US effectively ends the American experiment as the Founders envisioned it. Martial law will be declared, and the interim government will be the one of our creditor's choosing. They will repossess America like any bank.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 11:22 AM (nCKKS)

171 The solution is simple...attach an amendment to the Senate bill requiring Iran to implement a moratorium on death sentences to females and gays in order to have sanctions lifted. Would Obama veto it then?

---
Nice suggestion, but wont work. No country will allow the other to hold sway over its judicial system. Its a clear violation of sovereignty. In fact, I think it was the major reason Serbia did not agree to Austria Hungary's terms...

Anyway, Obama would make a statement like the above and veto. But good thinking.

Posted by: Stone at May 05, 2015 11:22 AM (qRV1m)

172 Everyone loses, and BIG, in the next war. It's not about wining or losing. It's about staying so strong, so much stronger than any 3 other opponents, that no one would think of challenging us. Is that expensive and unfair to make America do that? Yeah your damn right it is. But it is cheaper than the alternative

-----

I don't disagree with any of those points - other than it is about winning if there is a next great war (I want to be on the winning side).

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:22 AM (gmeXX)

173 Everyone loses, and BIG, in the next war. It's not about wining or losing. It's about staying so strong, so much stronger than any 3 other opponents, that no one would think of challenging us. Is that expensive and unfair to make America do that? Yeah your damn right it is. But it is cheaper than the alternative

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 05, 2015 11:20 AM (rDqRv)

I hate to say it but the next war will be a war of survival.

Posted by: wrg500 at May 05, 2015 11:23 AM (S+el1)

174 Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:20 AM (gmeXX)

Sock_rat_eez just gave you the facts. At this point you are simply being stubborn. I don't know as that we would lose either. I can make an educated guess though that, at the very least, the "lose 100 years of advancement" is a very real possibility. It will be ugly and *everyone* will lose.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at May 05, 2015 11:24 AM (GDulk)

175 And the main reason we need to be concerned about O's powers that allow him to act unilaterally is because he is malevolent and wishes harmful measures to be enacted. Definitely the worst president in US history. It's insane we're putting up with him.

Posted by: Aidan N. Abedin at May 05, 2015 11:24 AM (xkSSa)

176 This is all the money.
Congress critters and their lawyers get to dip their beaks in all those sweet, unfrozen Iranian assets.
They couldn't give a shit if we all burn.

Posted by: Thor's feather duster at May 05, 2015 11:26 AM (JgC5a)

177 >>>> I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with stick and stones. -Albert Einstein

Pshaw. We're on IV now.

III was fought with words, proxy wars, clandestine actions, funding for "popular fronts", propaganda, and eventually raw will. It took a very long time.

Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 05, 2015 11:27 AM (3ZtZW)

178 OK gotta go BBL

Posted by: Bigby's Wrasslin' Thumbs at May 05, 2015 11:28 AM (3ZtZW)

179 At this point you are simply being stubborn.

----

No I am not being stubborn. Pardon me for not accepting the AOSHQ commentators as experts on all things. I can think for myself thank you.

I have not argued that there is nothing to fear. I have not argued that everything is ok. I have not argued that it would not take time to get things mobilized.

But I have made the observation that this country has done it in the past. I have made the observation that some people think our manufacturing base is quite robust and thriving (see Kevin Williamson).

And I have questioned why someone would write "Learn Mandarin" as to what would happen in the next war.

I assume that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if not, I want to understand why some people think we would lose a war to China. I do not believe that.

If a nuclear weapon were to go off in this country, why would we not obliterate the country that sanctioned it?

I was trying to understand why people do not think that would be the outcome.

Posted by: SH at May 05, 2015 11:30 AM (gmeXX)

180 I read that Williamson piece and laughed at his naivete.
On this issue he has the perspective of a guy who writes for a living.
He looks at the Dow Jones and sees US based manufacturing companies doing OK and thinks that that's it.
How many of those companies are using machines built offshore ? Or need resources that are mined / refined offshore ?
Several times in the recent past I have ordered heavy parts from ostensibly US firms and been told something along the lines of "delivery on that will be 12 to 16 weeks because we have to get the castings from China".
When was the last time you saw a working foundry or forge shop ? Steel mill ?

Not saying that they don't exist, don't get me wrong, but there are not nearly enough of them.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at May 05, 2015 11:43 AM (go6ud)

181 So the Senate open letter to Iran was right: what one President does unilaterally, the next one can undo unilaterally.

Posted by: JohnJ at May 05, 2015 12:10 PM (TF/YA)

182 Drew, the Rubio/Cotton amendments are just Adelson-bait and bits of failure theater. Democrat opposition to the Rubio/Cotton amendments will be covered by GOP hawk and AIPAC opposition. The key here is Cruz's amendment, which would force the Senate and the Obama Administration to treat the Iran deal as a treaty. Get the Democrats, and the McCain/Corker/Graham "dignity of the Senate" crowd on record as opposing their own Constitutionally mandated prerogatives.

Posted by: James Madison at May 05, 2015 12:19 PM (Eszro)

183 Posted by: sock_rat_eez at May 05, 2015 11:43 AM (go6ud)

Funny relevant anecdote, but my husband went to Canadian engineering school with a Persian who eventually owned some Chrysler plants in Mexico. His friend flew him down to consult on the twist axel for the Fiat 500, which was held up in production. It took them a while to figure out he had no idea what he was doing, but they figured he was a corporate spy deciding who would get a pink slip. A bunch of them did, but it was nothing to do with my husband, who was a red herring. His friend sold those plants and moved operations to China.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 12:19 PM (nCKKS)

184 182 Luap nor tard.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 12:21 PM (nCKKS)

185 Forget the Democrats. It's time to call out GOP Inc., who, it is now obvious to see, wants to see the Iran sanctions lifted. Their opposition is fake.

Posted by: James Burnham at May 05, 2015 12:22 PM (Eszro)

186
They couldn't give a shit if we all burn.
Posted by: Thor's feather duster at May 05, 2015 11:26 AM (JgC5a)

I grew up near the underground White House that would house every member of Congress in the event of a nuclear war. It's in White Sulphur Springs, WV at the Greenbrier, and you can tour it now. It's a fun tour, but they'll point out Cheney pulled the plug on its funding and outed the operation.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 05, 2015 12:25 PM (nCKKS)

187 The only consideration left is how the GOP will position itself for the political post-deal fallout.

FDAU*
Face Down A** Up

Posted by: Seaword Galore at May 05, 2015 03:54 PM (dH7Cz)

188 Obama want to nuke the United States. What's new?

Posted by: burt at May 06, 2015 08:48 AM (ls8AU)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0337 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0144 seconds, 197 records returned.
Page size 123 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.