President of Iran Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that the passage of a measure giving congressional lawmakers the ability to review a pending nuclear agreement should not interfere with his ultimate goal of signing a deal with the U.S. and other world powers in the coming months.
Sunday morning I woke up to the news that Ayatollah Khamenei was angrily tweeting his disagreement to framework terms as stated in a fact sheet released by Obama administration. I admit to completely flipping out and commented here there would be no deal. In a mental rush I first assumed:
The Iranian ambassador had been duped;
then, Obama was misrepresenting, for congressional consumption, what he had promised the Iranians;
another possibility, that the Iranian ambassador had misrepresented to the Ayatollah the conditional degree of sanctions relief being offered by US, I dismissed as not really plausible.
It is encouraging that after the Ayatollah's outburst this weekend that Rouhani is calmly reiterating the other's statements.
It seems very possible that unless there is real, immediate relief from at least some of the sanctions as part of a signed deal then the Iranians will ultimately reject it. I can not see them, after all they have endured, just accepting a bad deal because there is no other deal to be had.
All 19 Senators on the FRC voted in favor of the Corker bill. Including a number of Democratic Senators, one being Senator Markey from my state of Massachusetts. Like I said before. There no difference if your Republican or Democrat. It's the one party, War Party.
The nuclear stability of the world is being undermined by American corporate greed and military-industrial spin in the quest for world domination. Presidents are held hostage by those who have funded their campaigns, or those of their opponents. Must be a lot of money doled out by those corporations because their are a LOT of pigs at the trough.
Only the Iranians know whether they already have nuclear weapons capability. It must look like a real gong show from Rouhani's point of view. Congress has created so much fluff and inserted so many non-conditional conditions in this potential agreement that it must be hard for him to comment with a straight face.
What a sham.
Help me out here, I'm a little confused.
* Congress is passing legislation giving them the right to tear apart the treaty agreement with Iran. They apparently want to go over it line by line and have the right to, for instance, continue sanctions against the nation.
* At the same time, Congress is trying to pass legislation giving the "president" the right to conclude trade agreements with no oversight, such as the Toilet Paper Plan (designed to wipe us all out) and a similar disaster on the Atlantic side.
* Since we were first being Bushwhacked, we have been at war with many small nations, millions are dead or displaced. Congress, which is constitutionally delegated the sole authority to declare war has sidestepped that to let the "president" and his warrior clan attack whomever they want.
* Now, there is a proposed treaty that might commit peace and they want total control to do what they want with it, regardless of the people, the rest of the government (if we really have one) or the world in general.
* What's wrong with this picture?
Ub is qown and down is up.
The new congressional logic and it is unanimous.
I thought humanity in higher echelons had evolved but I guess not.
Diplomacy in restraining nuclear weapons in Iran or a bloody war with Iran on Netanyahu's behalf. Those are the REAL choices.
"But if it rejected the agreement, Mr. Obama could veto that legislation — and it would take only 34 senators to sustain the veto, meaning that Mr. Obama could lose upward of a dozen Democratic senators and still prevail."
What's the point? The identical numbers apply to the current bill, but Obama capitulated because his head counters told him more than dozen Dems would vote for it.
Media seem shy about revealing the nine Foreign Relations committee Dems who joined 10 Repubs in the unanimous "Israel First" vote that endangers the deal with Iran. I reckon the Dems felt free to join the far right cause when Obama backed away from his threatened veto after his head counters warned the Dem defections would make an override probable. The changes in the bill on which Obama and the Dems justified their collapse are indeed "insignificant" as the Repubs described in their victory celebration.-MM
Here they are:
•Bob Menendez New Jersey
•Barbara Boxer- California
•Jeanne Shaheen - New Hampshire
•Christopher Coons Delaware
•Tom Udall New Mexico
•Chris Murphy Connecticut
•Tim Kaine - Virginia
•Edward J. Markey - MA
Iran wants the deal as they don't have a nuclear program.. The CIA in 2007 reported Iran gave up its program in 2003. In US vs Jeffrey Sterling, Sterling was convicted as a whistleblower as he exposed Operation Merlin. Operation Merlin required absolute secrecy as its purpose is to mislead the public into believing that there is a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Ie WMD2