Democrats Clinch Nuclear Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Democrats clinch critical 41 votes for Iran nuclear deal

Associated Press

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press 1 day ago

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., discusses the Iran nuclear agreement during his speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2015. 

Lawmakers returning to Washington from their summer recess are plunging immediately into bitter, partisan debate over the Iran nuclear accord. The deal struck by Iran, the U.S. and five world powers in July is aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars in relief for economic sanctions.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats clinched the crucial Senate votes Tuesday to block passage of a disapproval resolution against the Iran nuclear accord, an outcome that would be a major victory for President Barack Obama against united Republican opposition.

But amid fast-paced developments as lawmakers returned to Washington from their five-week summer recess, supporters of the deal stopped short of declaring victory. That was because it remained uncertain whether all 41 Democratic and independent senators now on record in favor of the deal would also support a filibuster to block a final vote on the disapproval resolution.
Still, the complicated machinery of Congress was turning in favor of the president on his top foreign policy priority, despite GOP control of both the House and the Senate. Already supporters of the deal have the votes in hand to uphold Obama’s veto of a disapproval resolution, should that become necessary. Blocking the disapproval resolution with a filibuster, while ideal from the White House view because it would spare Obama from having to use a veto, would not change the ultimate outcome.

“This agreement will stand,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a speech Tuesday morning at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “America will uphold its commitment and we will seize this opportunity to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

As the day began Tuesday Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia announced his opposition to the deal, a surprise “no” vote from a moderate Democrat who had sounded like he favored the pact aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

But that setback for supporters was erased within the hour as three Democrats seen as potential “no” votes on the deal all announced they would support it. Those senators were Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Gary Peters of Michigan.

“The fundamental question for me is what this agreement means for the prospects of Iran getting a nuclear bomb,” Wyden said. “This agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned, however, I have decided the alternatives are even more dangerous.”

The agreement struck by Iran, the U.S. and five world powers in July will provide Iran hundreds of billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions in exchange for a decade of constraints on the country’s nuclear program.

Republicans who control the House and Senate strongly oppose the pact, saying it makes dangerous concessions to Iran, and hope to push through a resolution of disapproval this week.

Leaders of Israel have been strongly lobbying against the deal they say could empower Iran, but had succeeded in winning over only three Senate Democrats, albeit all of them prominent figures — Chuck Schumer of New York, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Ben Cardin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Manchin added his name to that list Tuesday.
But the majority of Democrats have swung behind the president, and predictions that the issue would dominate discussion during Congress’ August recess never came to pass as political headlines were largely overtaken by Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. The two topics will converge on Wednesday, though, when Trump joins Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for a rally to oppose the deal — the same day Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers a speech supporting it.

The deal sets Iran back so that it is at least a year away from being able to produce enough nuclear material for a weapon, before the restrictions ease after a decade. Iran is currently assessed to be only 2 to 3 months away from being able to enrich enough uranium for a bomb, if it decides to do so.

Iran Deal Vote Down to the Wire (Ezekiel 17)

 
Iran Deal Vote Down to the Wire as Two More Senate Dems Choose Sides

Though it’s been settled for days that there are enough senators supporting the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran to support a presidential veto of a bill aiming to bar US participation, the battle for the 41 votes needed to filibuster and prevent the vote outright is coming down to the wire.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D – CO) became the 38th vote today, while Sen. Ben Cardin (D – MD) came out against the pact, complaining it “legitimizes” Iran’s civilian nuclear program and might mean Iran would have the capacity to enrich uranium to higher levels 10-15 years from now.

That means three more votes are needed to uphold the filibuster, and only five undecided senators remain, all Democrats. Every single Republican is against the Iran deal, and Cardin is only the third Democrat to join their side in the vote.

With the efforts to block US involvement in the bill outright failing, the Senate Republicans are treating getting a vote at all as a partial victory, and are also looking at introducing a number of additional bill that are designed to make implementation of the bill more difficult, and which are aimed at raising doubts about America’s dependability as a signatory.

What will happen when the Senate rejects the Iran deal

What happens if the Senate rejects the Iran deal?

By JOSEPH CIRINCIONE

The nuclear agreement with Iran is supported by almost every nation in the world. It has the backing of nearly the entire American security establishment, current and retired. It enjoys the overwhelming support of nuclear scientists and policy experts. There is no credible alternative.

And yet, with almost a month to go before the vote, lobbying against the deal is intense. No Republican senator supports the agreement. Two prominent Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez, have denounced it.

Are there really only two options on Iran?

If the Senate follows their lead and kills the deal, it will spell humiliation for the United States, an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program and the increased risk of a new war in the Middle East.
Here is how rejection would play out.

First, our allies would desert us. This is not just an agreement struck between the United States and Iran. It is a deal negotiated over two years by the world powers. America led the way, but Russia, China, the conservative governments of Britain, France and Germany, and the entire European Union were equal partners. Everyone had to agree on every term or there would have been no deal.

Opponents spin fanciful notions of a “better deal” with tougher terms, bigger sticks. This is nonsense. Our European partners have already told us that it is this option or nothing. If Congress blocks the deal, no nation, least of all Iran, will believe that the United States is capable of making and keeping a new agreement. U.S. credibility would collapse faster than the Chinese stock market.

The sanctions regime would then unravel. The U.S. persuaded most of the world to curtail their trade and financing with Iran because we presented a feasible path to a diplomatic solution. Take away diplomacy and the sanctions cannot hold. Any new ones passed by Congress would be feckless.
With diplomacy over, sanctions withering and the hard-liners in ascendancy, Iran’s nuclear program would come back with a vengeance.

“The idea that you can put sanctions on the whole world, including our allies, is not promising,” former head of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker said last week. Expecting the world to go along with new sanctions “when the U.S. is the one that backs out is not a strong negotiating position, to say the least.” Even our closest allies would steadily resume oil trade, investments and banking with Iran.
Hard-liners in Iran would also reassert their dominance. If you liked the Iranian government led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you are going to love the new one that would sweep into office once the centrist government of Hassan Rouhani is thrown out in disgrace. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would announce that he was right not to trust the Americans. The hopes of the young, educated population for a new chance at reform would be crushed.

These conditions almost certainly would lead to a renewed Iranian nuclear program. For 10 years, as sanctions and the threat of military force grew, so did the number of Iranian centrifuges. It was only diplomacy that halted and then rolled back the program. With diplomacy over, sanctions withering and the hard-liners in ascendancy, Iran’s nuclear program would come back with a vengeance. In short order, the Iranians could have tens of thousands of centrifuges enriching tons of uranium. They would be able to make enough for multiple bombs within days, not the full year the deal provides before they could make enough material for just one bomb.

Could Israel live with that threshold capability? Its political leaders have repeatedly said they couldn’t and threatened attacks if Iran gets this close to a bomb. U.S. hawks are eager to back them. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) says U.S. military strikes would be quick, cheap and effective.
U.S. military leaders are more sober about how difficult war would be. Draft U.S. plans call for weeks of airstrikes. Thousands of Iranians would die. Retaliation would be certain, including elite Quds Force attacks on U.S. and Israeli targets around the world. Iranian militias and the Revolutionary Guard would strike U.S. forces in the region. Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flows.

And war would not stop an Iranian bomb; it would accelerate it. U.S. military leaders estimate bombing would set back the Iranian program by only one to three years. Tehran would put the pedal to the metal. There would be no debate on whether to build a bomb. The population would rally around an otherwise unpopular regime, and the people would see a nuclear weapon as their only protection from a belligerent United States and Israel.

All of this is preventable. The deal in hand would stop an Iranian bomb and prevent a potential war. Congress would be foolish to reject this historic opportunity.

Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

The Democrats Who Will Overturn The Iran Deal

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

The White House still needs 17 senators to promise to protect the nuclear agreement.
2 hours ago | Updated 53 minutes ago

Jessica Schulberg Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post
Ryan Grim Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama needs 34 senators or 144 House members to stick with him in support of the nuclear deal recently negotiated with Iran. Obama has vowed to veto a congressional resolution of disapproval, which lawmakers are scheduled to vote on in September, and one-third of either chamber will be required to prevent the veto from being overturned.

The House is considered an easier playing field for Obama, since Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is a strong backer of the deal and has proven adept at holding together her caucus.
But much of the speculation has focused on the Senate, where a close look at the landscape suggests that the White House may be able to get to 34. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) even suggested this week that the chamber may not have the votes to pass the resolution of disapproval in the first place, meaning Obama might not have to use his veto power. With the possible exception of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Republicans are expected to vote as a party against the deal. This means the White House will have to pull the remaining 34 votes from the 44 Democrats and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Seventeen Democrats have publicly indicated they will vote against a resolution of disapproval, meaning they will back the agreement with Iran. A full list can be found at the end of this article. This means Obama is 17 votes shy of the number he needs.

The Huffington Post has evaluated the positions that the remaining members of the Senate Democratic caucus are likely to take, based on public statements, voting histories and conversations with officials and congressional staff members.

The analysis indicates that 14 undecided Democrats are likely to back the deal, bringing the number of pro-deal voters to a probable 31. Another 11 senators are wavering, but may be convinced by public pressure or by the Obama administration — which is heavily lobbying all of the fence-sitters — to come around to supporting the agreement. If all eleven senators came along, it would bring the total to 42.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is the only Democrat who has publicly announced that he will vote down the deal, although Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is expected to join him.

VERY LIKELY YES, BUT NOT OFFICIALLY IN THE BAG (14)

Sherrod Brown (Ohio) @sensherrodbrown
“Americans prefer a diplomatic solution that ensures Iran cannot develop or obtain a nuclear weapon,” Brown said on July 14, the day the deal was announced. “If early reports are correct, it appears the agreement the U.S. and other U.N. Security Council nations have finally reached with Iran is the kind of durable and verifiable agreement that is far preferable to further escalation and possible military action.”
More recently, Brown said he was “so disappointed” in the politicized nature of the debate and criticized lawmakers who came out in opposition to the agreement the day it was announced.
Michael Bennet (Colo.) @senbennetCO
“A good deal could bring greater stability to the Middle East, more security throughout the world, and help avoid escalation in the region,” Bennet said on July 14. The Colorado Democrat is close to the White House and up for re-election in 2016.
Tom Carper (Del.) @senatorcarper
“I’m doing my homework, doing my due diligence,” Carper told Delaware Public Media late last week. “I’m leaning yes, but I’m going to hold off until I actually finish reading the deal over the next week or so and I have a couple phone calls I want to make to other people who have been involved in this and help make the decision.”
Al Franken (Minn.) @alfranken
“Obviously, a diplomatic resolution to Iran’s nuclear program is preferable to military action. I hope that the deal will verifiably block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,” Franken said July 14. The Jewish senator was one of several Democrats who skipped Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March, which was aimed at convincing lawmakers to oppose the negotiations with Iran. His refusal to attend signaled a likely pro-deal vote, and his fellow Minnesotan, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, is on record in favor.
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) @maziehirono
“The pathway to implementing a deal to effectively prevent Iran from obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon is in sight,” the junior senator from Hawaii said on July 14. Sen. Brian Schatz, her fellow Democrat from Hawaii, has already said he’s a firm yes.
Joe Manchin (W.Va.) @Sen_JoeManchin.
The red-state Democrat has said he is leaning towards backing the agreement. “Everybody says there is a better deal,” he told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in late July. “What options are on the table or even basically discussed I could consider voting for?
“I’m leaning very strongly to saying, OK, let’s try going along with the P5+1,” he continued, referring to the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, which collectively negotiated the deal with Iran.
Manchin backed two rounds of sanctions legislation in the past two years that were opposed by the Obama administration, which claimed that the timing of the sanctions could upend the negotiations with Iran. However, the senator eventually withdrew his support for one of the bills, citing a desire to give the negotiators a chance to succeed.
Claire McCaskill (Mo.) @clairecmc
“The analysis I’m doing is pretty simple,” McCaskill said Tuesday. “It’s not a perfect deal, there’s a lot of things about this deal that are bad, but what is the new status quo if we walk away?” McCaskill came out with an early endorsement of presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has urged Congress to approve the Iran deal.
Jeff Merkley (Ore.) @SenJeffMerkley
“Today’s announcement is a significant milestone in the effort to preclude Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon,” Merkley said on July 14. “I will be deeply engaged in examining the details in preparation for the upcoming review by Congress.” It is unlikely that Merkley, a strong progressive and advocate of peaceful resolutions to conflict, would oppose the deal.
Merkley supported the president by opposing the two controversial new rounds of sanctions that the administration was lobbying against. Moreover, as an undergraduate at Stanford University during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, he wrote his honors thesis about the U.S. role in propping up Iran’s unpopular shah. Merkley wrote in the paper that support for repressive leaders “has made America seem both hypocritical and imperialistic.”
Edward Markey (Mass.) @SenMarkey
“I commend Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz and the entire U.S. diplomatic team for their tireless and committed work at these historic negotiations,” Markey said the day the deal was announced. “We need to ensure that this agreement has the most invasive inspections possible, the most intensive enforcement provisions possible, including expedited ability to reinstate sanctions if Iran violates the agreement, and the most aggressive means to remove the technological capability for Iran to quickly make a nuclear weapon.”
Markey declined to back the two rounds of sanctions legislation opposed by the administration, and is unlikely to break with the White House on the nuclear deal.
Barbara Mikulski (Md.) @SenatorBarb
The retiring senator from Maryland has been noticeably quiet on the Iran deal, but is seen as likely to vote to uphold it. She abstained from both efforts to hit Iran with additional sanctions, and Ambassador Wendy Sherman — the lead U.S. negotiator for the nuclear talks with Iran — was once her chief of staff. Mikulski is planning to visit the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. agency charged with oversight of Iran’s nuclear program, during the August recess, and will likely make her announcement when she returns.
Patty Murray (Wash.) @PattyMurray
Murray has been quiet since the announcement of the nuclear deal, telling Politico it would be “a while” before she reaches a decision. But Murray declined to support both sanctions efforts, explaining to her constituents in 2014 that sanctions should be avoided to give the Obama administration time to negotiate a “strong, verifiable comprehensive agreement.”
Jack Reed (R.I.) @SenJackReed
“This agreement demonstrates the power of American-led diplomacy and establishes a strict and robust monitoring and verification system. If fully implemented, this deal will help control Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon,” Reed said the day the deal was announced.
Jon Tester (Mont.) @jontester
Though he has not given any indication as to which way he he will vote, Tester appears open to supporting the deal. He announced that as he contemplated his decision, he met with and quizzed former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer and former Ambassador William Luers, both of whom are strong supporters of the deal. He also met with Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. and a staunch critic of the accord.
In a publicly posted letter to the White House, Tester enumerated his concerns with the nuclear deal but also thanked the individuals who worked on the negotiations, describing them as “patriots.” The State Department responded promptly to his questions.
Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) @SenWhitehouse
“Whenever possible, I believe the U.S. should seek to advance our security goals through diplomacy rather than force. The President and his team, particularly Secretary Kerry, deserve tremendous credit for pursuing this diplomatic solution to one of our world’s most pressing security challenges,” Whitehouse said on July 14.
Of the Democrats who are undecided, Whitehouse was the only senator other than Franken who skipped Netanyahu’s speech in March.
He told Politico on Tuesday that he will make a decision next week. “If I had to make a guesstimation, I would say there will be enough senators to sustain the president’s veto, and there’s a chance — just a chance — of keeping the number below 60,”
Whitehouse said. “I wouldn’t say there’s a big chance, but there’s an outside chance.”
ON THE FENCE, BUT BEING LOBBIED HEAVILY (11)
Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) @SenBlumenthal
Blumenthal was an original co-sponsor of the two consecutive efforts to pass additional sanctions in the midst of negotiations. However, his July 14 reaction to the deal was neutral: “I welcome the announcement of an agreement with Iran after a long and difficult diplomatic road,” he said. “While our common hope may be that diplomacy has succeeded in barring an Iranian path to nuclear weapons capability, Congress must apply exacting standards and strict scrutiny, especially given Iran’s history of deceit and international law violations.”
Cory Booker (N.J.) @corybooker
Booker has yet to issue a statement and is currently juggling his loyalty to Obama and his ideological support of peace and diplomacy with pressure from pro-Israel lobbying groups, who gave Booker significant backing during the last election cycle. Earlier this year, Booker heeded the president’s call to resist voting for new sanctions.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is close to Booker, admonished the senator on Twitter last week, suggesting it was hypocritical to quote Tupac saying “They have money for war but can’t feed the poor” while also casting a vote that could lead to war.
Maria Cantwell (Wash.) @SenatorCantwell
“It’s a really busy time around here and people are trying to do other things,” Cantwell told Politico shortly before the August recess. “And so if you don’t have to decide in the next two days, then people will take their time.” Cantwell has given no other public indication of how she’ll vote.
Chris Coons (Del.) @ChrisCoons
Coons is a close ally of the Obama administration. When lawmakers were considering legislation to give Congress a vote on the eventual Iran deal, Coons, along with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), played an instrumental role in modifying the bill into something that was amenable to the White House. However, he has also supported controversial sanctions legislation in the past.
Before leaving for recess, Coons said he had some concerns about the IAEA’s ability to conduct a meaningful investigation into whether Iran sought nuclear weapons in the past.
Joe Donnelly (Ind.) @SenDonnelly
Donnelly has been one of the most tight-lipped senators about the issue, but supported the efforts to sanction Iran in the midst of talks.
Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) @SenatorHeitkamp
Heitkamp was one of the original co-sponsors of the bill that provided Congress with the opportunity to vote on the Iran deal — which, in its original version, faced a veto threat from Obama. Although Heitkamp stayed quiet after the initial announcement of the deal, she has since posted the entire text of the agreement on Medium and encouraged her constituents to read up.
She recently advocated lifting the export ban on U.S. oil, arguing that if Iran’s oil industry received sanctions relief, U.S. oil exports should be allowed to flow freely — an indication she thinks the nuclear deal is likely to go into effect.
Heitkamp is likely to find herself under pressure from her sizable progressive women’s donor network. Her supporters was disappointed by her vote against background check legislation, but cheered when she opposed Larry Summers’ bid for chairman of the Federal Reserve. Many of those donors are pushing for approval of the Iran deal.
Gary Peters (Mich.) @Peters4Michigan
Peters has not yet issued a statement on the Iran deal, but was a co-sponsor on the most recent sanctions legislation. As the lone freshman Democrat, Peters is unlikely to make waves by breaking with a president of his party on the cornerstone of the administration’s foreign policy agenda.
Harry Reid (Nev.) @SenatorReid
Although the retiring Senate Minority Leader has not come out publicly in favor of the nuclear accord yet, he has tended to heed the Obama administration’s requests to give diplomacy a chance. As majority leader in the last Congress, Reid blocked attempts to vote on new sanctions. More recently, he opposed the timing of the vote on the bill that gave Congress a vote on the deal, again citing concerns that it would hinder negotiations.
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) @SenStabenow
Stabenow has been noticeably quiet on the Iran deal. She has not issued a statement and her public comments have been cryptic while also suggesting she is open to the accord. “We have to look at what the alternatives are and really be very thoughtful because it is incredibly serious for the United States and for Israel and for the world. … It’s a very difficult issue,” she told The Detroit News last month.
Stabenow is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee and close with Schumer, who has publicly opposed the deal. She recently defended Schumer against the administration’s criticism of his decision, saying, “I think it’s very unfortunate to see the comments coming from people connected with the White House.”
Mark Warner (Va.) @MarkWarner
Warner has not yet indicated which way he’ll vote, but recently pushed back on critics who accused the Obama administration of rushing into a bad deal to cement the president’s legacy. “I find it remarkable that some members seem to impugn that you are not there trying to do the best deal possible for the United States of America and for long-term prospects of stability in the region,” he said to Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator, during a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing.
“I’ve got more due diligence to do,” he said at the time about his position on the deal.
Ron Wyden (Ore.) @RonWyden
“I said all along I was skeptical that Iran’s leaders would agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons program and I have questions about whether this agreement accomplishes that, particularly in light of Iran’s history on this issue,” Wyden said on July 14. “However, I will use my seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee to thoroughly review the details.”
Wyden, who is Jewish, is up for re-election in 2016 and has been a top recipient of funding from pro-Israel groups, the most powerful of which oppose the Iran deal. However, Wyden abided by the Obama administration’s requests to hold off on new sanctions.
LEANING NO (2)
Ben Cardin (Md.) @SenatorCardin
Cardin was noncommittal in his July 14 response to the deal: “In our deliberations we need to ensure the negotiations resulted in a comprehensive, long-lasting, and verifiable outcome that also provides for snap-back of sanctions should Iran deviate from its commitments. Congress faces a solemn charge that I expect will be fulfilled to the best of our abilities and at the highest of standards beginning today.”
As the newly ascendant ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Cardin acted as the liaison between the White House and committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) in the lead-up to a vote on the bill that gave Congress a vote on the deal — his involvement ultimately helped produce a watered-down version of the bill that was amenable to the White House. The bill was touted as a sign of the strength the committee could wield with bipartisan cooperation.
(However, if Cardin hoped that Corker would join him in bipartisan support of the Iran deal, those hopes were quickly dashed. Although Corker has not formally announced which way he will vote, he began loudly criticizing the agreement almost immediately after it was announced.)
In the past, Cardin has cooperated closely with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the staunchest critics of the deal, and is facing pressure from the group to vote down the agreement.
Bob Casey (Pa.) @SenBobCasey
Casey was an original co-sponsor on the two controversial attempts to intensify sanctions. In his only statement since the deal was announced, Casey said, “I will be conducting a thorough review of the agreement to evaluate whether it protects our national security interests.” Pro-Israel constituents make up a significant portion of his suburban Philadelphia donor base.
ALMOST DEFINITELY NO (1)
Bob Menendez (N.J.) @SenatorMenendez
A known Iran hawk and the author of nearly every piece of recent sanctions legislation against Iran, Menendez is widely assumed to be a no vote on the Iran bill. He slammed the agreement in his initial statement: “I’m concerned the redlines we drew have turned into green-lights; that Iran will be required only to limit rather than eliminate its nuclear program, while the international community will be required to lift the sanctions, and that it doesn’t provide for anytime-any-place inspections of suspected sites. The bottom line is: The deal doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it preserves it.” However, Menendez insists that he’s still reviewing the deal.
DEFINITELY NO (1)
Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) @SenSchumer
The incoming Senate Democratic leader is currently the only member of his party in the Senate who has officially come out against the deal. “I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power,” Schumer wrote in a statement.
While this position did not come as a surprise, it was met with harsh rebuke by progressive Democratic groups, who have vowed to withhold funding from Schumer and other Democrats who oppose the nuclear agreement.
PLOT TWIST: THE REPUBLICAN WHO COULD SAVE THE DEAL (1)
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) @JeffFlake
“On the whole, this agreement measured against the ideal doesn’t look all that good,” Flake said during a Senate floor speech in August. “Against the alternative, it’s a much closer call.”
The junior Arizona senator has demonstrated comfort with breaking from his party on a range of issues — including Iran. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was drafting the bill to give Congress a vote on the deal, Flake was the key Republican calling for his colleagues to hold back on “poison pill” amendments that would cost the bill Democratic support.
*The 17 senators who have publicly pledged to back the Iran nuclear agreement are: Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

White House Tries To Discredit Schumer (Ezekiel 17)

  

Schumer points to White House in leak of Iran vote position

By Deirdre Walsh, CNN Senior Congressional Produce
Updated 6:25 PM ET, Tue August 11, 2015

Washington (CNN)New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the lone Senate Democrat to publicly come out against the Iran deal, suggested Tuesday that the White House deliberately leaked his decision to oppose the agreement Thursday night before he had a chance to explain his “no” vote to colleagues.
“I told the president the day before and I don’t think he leaked it, but maybe somebody in the White House did, maybe somebody else did. I’m not pointing fingers,” Schumer told reporters after a speech at New York University on Tuesday.

The White House has denied being behind the media leak.

Schumer’s comments are the latest salvo between the New York senator and a White House at odds on a centerpiece of Obama’s foreign policy legacy. Former Obama aides and progressive outside groups have harshly attacked Schumer since his position became public and have questioned whether he’s fit to be the next Senate Democratic leader.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, threw cold water on this idea Tuesday, telling The Hill that he still supported Schumer. So far, no senators have come out against him as the next Senate Democratic leader.

Schumer was long thought to oppose the deal, but the timing of his statement of opposition — ahead of Congress’s summer recess, when members are expected to come under intense lobbying from both sides, rather than closer to the vote when revealing his position would be less influential — has particularly distressed the White House.

Congress will hold a vote on the Iran deal in September. While the White House is confident that they have enough votes to sustain an expected presidential veto should Congress reject the deal, they are counting every body.

Schumer raised the issue of a possible White House leak himself Tuesday in response to a question about the timing of his lengthy post on Medium that outlined his concerns about the deal. The leak of his decision came out in the middle of the Republican presidential debate last Thursday night, presumably when it would receive less attention, and the Medium piece appeared soon after.
The New York Democrat said he planned to publish the piece the day after the GOP debate, but his hand was forced by the leak.

Even though he was the one to aim the blame at the White House, Schumer appeared to downplay the episode Tuesday, saying, “Things always leak in Washington. So I don’t begrudge anybody for doing it.”
And he also minimized the split with the President. “The President and I had a very serious discussion about it,” he said. “We like each other, respect each other, work together on 95% of the issues.”

The President’s allies, though, are taking the breach seriously. David Plouffe, a former senior official in the Obama White House, continued the Democrat-on-Democrat war against Schumer late on Monday when he tweeted out a link to a story quoting Schumer urging the administration to try to negotiate a better deal.

“Mitch McConnell will have a field day with this kind of naïveté. We will miss Harry Reid,” Plouffe tweeted.

The current Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, announced his retirement in March and Schumer quickly locked up commitments from fellow Democrats to ascend to his post in January 2017.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, however, denied the White House had any part in the leak at a press briefing Friday.

An administration source also told CNN on Tuesday that they learned about Schumer’s opposition from sources on Capitol Hill before the senator informed them, implying several people knew of his position and raising the specter that others had leaked the information.

Schumer said fellow Democrats understand where he stands and aren’t telling him they won’t back him because of it.

Schumer said Tuesday that he plans to try to “persuade” undecided Democrats to help him block the deal but insisted he wasn’t twisting any arms on what he called “a vote of conscience.”

“Certainly I’m going to try and persuade my colleagues that my viewpoint is right. But anyone who thinks you can force somebody to vote with you in the Senate doesn’t understand the Senate.”

Missouri Democratic Rep. Claire McCaskill told Yahoo News’ Katie Couric that Schumer is “one of my best friends” and said she spoke with him since he announced his opposition to the deal, but that he didn’t lean on her vote against it.

McCaskill added that Schumer “checked in” with her and that “he understands that this is a tough call.”

Schumer said any effort to engage in “some kind of horse-trading” in return for a vote on the agreement would be “counterproductive.”
 

Meanwhile, in Israel opponents of the deal were also trying their hand at persuasion.

On the heels of a visit by Democrat members of Congress, Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin hosted a delegation of 36 House Republicans on Tuesday. The group was led by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, a vocal critic of the Iran deal.

“We fear that the agreement with Iran is a first step in the legitimization of Iran’s policies and strategies, and only acts to further destabilize a chaotic region,” Rivlin told the lawmakers.

Oy Vey! Next Democrat Senate Leader Opposes Iran Deal (Eze 17)

Chuck Schumer to vote against Iran nuclear deal

By Kevin Liptak, Jim Acosta and Deirdre Walsh, CNN

Updated 10:28 AM ET, Fri August 7, 2015

 Chuck Schumer to oppose Iran nuclear deal 01:02

Washington (CNN)

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, an influential Jewish Democrat who’s poised to assume leadership of his party in the Senate, will oppose President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, he announced on Thursday evening.

“After deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval,” Schumer wrote in a 1,600-word post on the website Medium.

“I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy,” he added later. “It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”

Schumer’s thinking on the deal has been closely watched since the plan to loosen sanctions on Tehran in exchange for access to potential nuclear sites was announced in early July.

Schumer would also vote to override the President’s veto on Iran deal, an aide told CNN on Friday morning, meaning he is prepared to vote “no” twice against the President.

He said in public comments over the past several weeks he was going through the deal with a “fine-tooth comb” and received briefings from top administration officials to digest the deal’s inner workings.

His decision quickly provoked criticism from several former White House aides.

Former speechwriter Jon Favreau tweeted: “Chuck Schumer, who said it was a mistake to pass Obamacare, now comes out again the Iran Deal. This is our next Senate leader?”

Schumer’s announcement Thursday came after two Democratic colleagues — fellow New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire — both said they would back the agreement, which lawmakers have until mid-September to decide upon. On Friday morning, Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin also said she’d back the deal.

In the House, at least five Democrats came out in support of the plan on Wednesday following a major speech by Obama defending it.

But a senior House Democrat also came out in opposition Thursday night.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel, Schumer’s New York colleague, also officially announced he was against the deal, despite a one-on-one meeting with Obama last week.

A White House official suggested Thursday that Schumer’s announcement of opposition came only after enough Democratic support was assured to keep the plan intact.

One source close to the New York delegation’s discussions told CNN that Schumer was expected to hold off making his opposition public until the math was clear that Republicans wouldn’t be able to assemble votes for an override, though the source thought Schumer would wait until the fall to announce.

But in recent days a steady stream of public endorsements made supporters more confident they would have a firewall in place to uphold the deal.

A source familiar with Schumer’s decision on Iran told CNN that the senator informed the White House earlier today of his intention to oppose the deal. He had planned to make his decision public Friday. During the first 2016 Republican presidential debate Thursday night, however, the Huffington Post reported that he would be coming out against the deal, and soon after his statement appeared on Medium.

Schumer’s leanings on the deal had been closely watched since the plan to loosen sanctions on Tehran in exchange for access to potential nuclear sites was announced in early July.

Since then, the Obama administration has waged a massive lobbying effort to persuade Democrats to back the plan. The President has vowed to reject any measure scuttling the agreement, and a majority of Democrats are needed in Congress to sustain a potential veto.

Schumer had been eyed as a key vote, both for his prominence as the top Jewish Democrat in Congress and the expectation that he’ll become the Democratic leader in the Senate when Minority Leader Harry Reid retires at the end of his term in 2016.

After his review, he wrote Thursday that worrisome elements of the deal — including the provisions concerning inspections and the formula for sanctions to “snap back” if Iran violates its side of the agreement — led him to his decision.

 

And he argued sanctions relief for Tehran would only serve to empower a hardline regime.

“To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great,” he said.

That Dick Is Full of Crap, & Vice Versa (Revelation 13:5)

Cheney: ‘The report’s full of crap’

By Eric Bradner, CNN

updated 3:28 PM EST, Thu December 11, 2014

 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Dick Cheney called the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA interrogation techniques a “terrible piece of work”
• He said he has no regrets about the tactics used after the 9/11 terrorist attacks

Washington (CNN) — Former Vice President Dick Cheney called a Senate panel’s report on U.S. interrogation tactics during George W. Bush’s administration is “deeply flawed” and a “terrible piece of work.”

“The report’s full of crap,” he said in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday evening.

Bush’s Republican vice president insisted that the Central Intelligence Agency’s rough tactics — which the report said included mock executions, beatings, “rectal rehydration” and feeding, sleep deprivation and more — helped the United States “catch the bastards who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11.”

“It did in fact produce actionable intelligence that was vital in the success of keeping the country safe from further attacks,” he said.

Asked specifically about the rectal rehydration instance detailed in the report, Cheney said: “I don’t know anything about that specific instance — I can’t speak to that.”

He also said he hadn’t actually read the report. Its full 6,000 pages haven’t been released, but a lengthy summary was issued Tuesday. Cheney said he’d “seen parts of it. I read summaries of it.”

Contrary to the report’s conclusion that Bush didn’t know the extent of the CIA’s efforts, Cheney said the President was involved in discussions about the interrogation techniques, and that Bush even pointed out some of those conversations in a book he wrote after leaving office.

He said he has no regrets about the tactics used after the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks.

“I think what needed to be done was done,” Cheney said. “I think we were perfectly justified in doing it. And I’d do it again in a minute.”