why would they derail the plan and go for sanctions? AIPAC is the answer. They are so strong they lobby inside the party structure and I don't want another war.

I think that he should ask they be clear and exact in their language. Peace is such a prize, why are they derailing it?

Check out the list of sb 1881's co-sponsors. It speaks volumes!

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th/senate-bill/1881/cosponsors

However, the situation with Iran has long been a volatile one. It will always be that way. I don't believe a breakdown at this moment will lead to war.

If it does, blaming it on this one issue is naive. There are years of history, skullduggery from all parties involved, and other factors that would lead to it.

Are you this pessimistic about life in general or only Iran?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Previous actions lead me to this feeling.

The region has thousands of years of history and groups there bring some part of it up all the time. They hold looooong grudges.
We don't understand the region or the players. Our involvement, especially with troops and armaments in places, make it a much more dangerous and complex place.

I have no pessimism like this about other places except for N.Korea. I used to think the Chinese had some kind of handle on them, but one wonders.

since they threw out the Shah and Reagan/Bush negotiated the delay of the embassy staff and then screwed them in the Iran/Iraq war where we installed Saddam and gave him chemical weapons. It was bloody and terrible for a long time and for the first time their leader and our leader are negotiating peace for the region.

I believe that Bibi is a racist, warmonger and has many friends on both sides of the aisle who would profit from war. While the world begs for peace, our senators are pushing for war and the President has the duty to call them out on it.

disgusting

I was thinking of Bibi and his crew.

Ariel Sharon is dead today; I will never forget the day I went to work and I saw the satellite news feed of Sabra and Shatila. The feed showing women and children hanging, desperately clawing up a fence trying to escape the bullets and the piles of bodies at the bottom. That did implant a bias that day.

Then some years later when I was actively political (my party in this state won't have me) I was stunned when I was going to the California state dem conventions the huge lobby efforts of AIPAC. Yes, I am naive. (In answer to someone else)

Really? Like grandpa "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain? Rubio, Graham, Sessions, McConnell, Cruz, Cornyn ........ you get the idea!

actual anti-Semitism when it occurs. No matter how one tries to spin it or what tedious sophistry and endless mountains of bullshit some try to spew - for far, far too long - many American politicians including a lot of so called liberal Democrats - have for whatever reason - have for so long - put the demands of Israel and its lobby ahead of the national interest of the United States of America and the peace and stability of the world - Yes AIPAC and the Israeli lobby do have something to do with it AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT!! Lying about it doesn't do anyone any good.

of Israel in this country. Being pro-Israel is no defense, as I've found out to my own cost. Jews who

criticize Israel's policies are charmingly called "Self-hating Jews". There must be a lot of self-hating Jews

in Israel because they argue like hell with each other about the country's policies all the time".


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/26/ivins.israelilobby/

The other poster said nothing of the sort. GD isn't amateur hour. Try again.

The old canard that Jews have to much power and constitute a shadow government. Classic anti-semitism.

AIPAC does not represent the Jewish people as a whole, nor are they entirely a Jewish organization. Many of AIPAC's backers are not even Jewish and many people who are Jewish disagree with AIPAC.

Many Jews even in Israel oppose the mission of AIPAC, they are a lobby group and no lobby group is above criticism.

Because we all know they are just talking about the location of crime.

AIPAC is a lobby group, sort of like the NRA or Americans for Prosperity. They are a political group pushing a very specific agenda, an agenda that is very divisive even among the Jewish community. Many Israelis oppose the agenda of AIPAC, they by no means represent all Jews.

To suggest disagreeing with a lobby group is the same thing as using a racially loaded term is absurd.

We will just have to disagree.

Do you believe the Jewish people who oppose AIPAC are using anti-semitic dog whistles when they express that opposition?

Then I would reconsider. Are you denying that there are people that oppose AIPAC because they do not like Jews?

The fact is there are Jewish people who oppose AIPAC and I asked you if you think Jewish opponents of AIPAC are using anti-Semitic dog whistles when they express that opposition, you did not answer the question.

The Jewish people are not in complete agreement over Israeli foreign policy, you can not claim it is anti-semitic to ally yourself with the Jews who oppose AIPAC rather than the Jews who support it.

I don't know how you got the idea that I am "denying that there are people that oppose AIPAC because they do not like Jews" because I never even said anything remotely like that. Of course there are anti-semites that oppose AIPAC but that is far different than saying that if you oppose AIPAC you are anti-semitic. If you have proof that the poster was expressing opposition to AIPAC just because Israel is a primarily Jewish nation then present the evidence, but there are plenty of reasons to oppose Israeli foreign policy that have nothing to do with religion or ethnicity.

lets get back to what started this. You asked why someone would associate antisemitism with blaming AIPAC. And I explained that it could be a dog whistle. I was not accusing the poster of anything, just explaining why many consider it a dog whistle.

And with that I am done with this thread - I don't care enough to get into a fight over it. Have a good day.

The burden of proof is on the person who made the accusation, if you can't provide any evidence to back up your accusation then I can totally see why you would want to abandon this debate before you embarrass yourself any further.

I believe that there are Jewish people with and against AIPAC. I also think that each group believes their path is the correct one for Israel.

I don't oppose AIPAC because Israel is a Jewish country. To assume that or any such charge is unfair and libelous.

When they call each other out as being traitors to their country, the real disconnect begins. That is a charge that cuts very deeply IMO.

I don't know what the best path is. Each step is fraught with dangers and problems.

In fact I said quite the opposite, I do not think it is anti-semitic to oppose AIPAC. You may have responded to the wrong person because I would agree with you that it is unfair and libelous to accuse people of anti-semitism based purely on their expressing opposition to AIPAC's policies.

There are a lot of Jews who want nothing to do with AIPAC and plenty of AIPAC supporters who are not Jewish.

It seems reasonable to me; obviously there are people in Congress and in the world who do want a war with Iran. If they are taking steps that the Obama administration feels push us closer to war, well it's reasonable for them to ask for clarification.

Bryant

However, my question stands.
Why aren't Republican Senators called out?
Many of them have openly advocated for the US to take up arms against Iran. As I stated, they have even resorted to going to the Middle East and meeting with different people.

I don't believe the Democrats have a comparable record.

Republicans being warmongering obstructionists determined to stymie the President isn't really news - and at this point I don't think the Administration can expect anything else. They can expect more out of Democrats - that said, i'm not sure this was the best way to go about it - seems very public.

Bryant

Why blast them like this publicly?
I still take issue with claiming that using this step means they WANT a confrontation or whatever people want to call it.

for any warmongering. However, IMHO, Obama is warning his fellow democrats that they must be prepared to be judged by the voters that put them in office if they will risk a war with Iran before all other options have been played out.

It will be these voters and their children that will be asked to fight and die in this war. They will definitely want to know this before they reelect these politicians. As for warning the voters of the repug warmongers, I am not sure any of them will listen or care.

I had not considered Israel as a motive for their calls for action against Iran, this old brain is slowing down rapidly these days. But that, again IMHO, makes it even worse that they are prepared to risk US lives for a country that is slowly becoming an Apartheid nation as it continues to swallow up land it does not own and treats many of its own as second class citizens.

he's treating them just the same. All the senators behind the bill are called out.

....... Really?

the Administration lets others speak for them. Some times it's from far-flung people about relatively minor issues.

However, this President is directly involved in foreign affairs and what occurs. The people speaking about this are not unknown minions who have left the reservation. If this kind of hyperbole is not what he wants, then he should say so.

'The United States to take military action'. That's a difference in semantics. A military action is war unless you hold to some Vietnamesque difference.

Glad that's been cleared up.

Now..... who made the "the United States to take military action" quote? Got a name of the administration official?

Quibbling, quibbling, quibbling...

way that makes a military confrontation much more likely sounds exactly like what the President suggested it is.

of the current agreement by Iran, is to push for war. Whatever their motives or fears, it is clear that these senators do not want to wait and see if diplomacy works. Sanctions are cued up and ready to go--if Iran breaks its pledges, the bill could be passed in a day, even in this congress. Putting a premature stop to the process is like the (equally stupid) "line in the sand" over chemical weapons in Syria. It boxes us in, leaving us with 2 unattractive options: going back on our word or going to war.

I agree that they need to be called out on this, if for no other reason than the mind-numbing stupidity. I expect that from the other party, not from ours.

The president is making three things clear:

1). This bill makes war more likely;
2). Democrats who are pandering to AIPAC on this will not be getting a free ride;
3). Fuck Bob Menendez.

particular special interest group.

In all likelihood, Harry will never bring this to the floor.

The Obama administration will attack it forcefully to minimize impact of the "potential bill" on the actual negotiations. Hey Iran, let's get this done so that this entire "new sanctions thing" dies.

And the Dem Senators will collect the campaign money, probably knowing no vote on this will ever happen.

I don't know where the OP got that quote they cited. But it was sure not anything the President said.

In every situation ... first thought ... how does this situation make Obama the bad guy.

I wouldn't have commented. President Obama isn't the bad guy or a bad guy. Neither are these Democratic Senators.

First ... its important to know what the administration has been saying about this legislation prior to this latest story.

From November:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-iran-sanctions-will-lead-to-war-white-house-warns/

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/11/20/2975661/feinstein-iran-sanctions-war/

The administration had taken this same position back in November. Their position is basically unchanged.

And then from the other day, the quote in the article says ....

From the incomparable Jenna Marbles, of course

that attempts to shame Democrats needs some self reflection.

I edited my post to reflect that the President did not say that - just a member of his administration.

he isn't anti-military action in every instance?

Shouldn't you be happy he isn't opting for war with Iran? Shouldn't that trump your instinct to attack this administration?

The sound and fury from both sides at other times has equaled or surpassed what is being said now.

The risk of a war in the Middle East is an omnipresent reality. The bigger fear is that someone will take a step that is devastating to some group. This would create a point of no return and demand a retaliation.

I do not believe this issue makes war inevitable as most of you seem to believe. There is no simple step to war. There are wheels within wheels and alliances between gawd knows who.

Nobody benefits from an all out war. A military confrontation with Iran could bring that about. Rouhani isn't stupid.

The people who 'want' war are those who openly advocate for it. Taking a step that makes a military confrontation more likely is a long way from making it happen.

Obama talks to Iran, says look, I'll hold off the US Senate, let's get this done.

The Senate squaks about more sanctions, and collects its money from the lobbyists who want no agreement and would really like a US war in Iran.

Thank you for writing to me about the recent negotiations with Iran and new sanctions legislation. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts and concerns with me.



On November 23, 2013, the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China) announced an initial agreement to halt Iran's nuclear program. Among other things, this six-month plan places limits on Iran's enrichment capabilities, reduces existing stockpiles of enriched uranium, halts plutonium production and provides for unprecedented access and monitoring of Iranian nuclear facilities. In return, the P5+1 have agreed to "limited, temporary, targeted and reversible" sanction relief. This partial relief includes the suspension of sanctions on gold and precious metals, the Iranian auto sector, and Iran's petrochemical exports. The bulk of international sanctions, including banking, oil and financial sanctions will remain in place. The purpose of this initial six-month agreement is to slow Iran's nuclear program while continuing to negotiate a long-term solution that addresses the broader concerns of the international community. If at any point during the initial six-month period Iran fails to uphold its commitments, sanction relief will cease and new, tougher sanctions will be enforced.



Both Congress and the Administration share a common resolve that the preferred way to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program is through diplomacy. But we must be prepared to test Iran's sincerity to comply with these latest efforts to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities. I remain deeply concerned about Iran's ability to follow through with these new commitments. Iran's track record gives us good reason to have new and stronger sanctions at the ready, which is why I am a cosponsor of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act. While I understand the Obama Administration is opposed to this legislation, it is consistent with the President's commitments that no new sanctions would go into effect as long as Iran is in compliance. It also reflects the President's public statements that if Iran does not negotiate in good faith, new sanctions will be swiftly implemented.



Again, thank you for contacting me. I want to assure you that I remain committed to preventing Iran from achieving nuclear weapon capability and will be monitoring developments closely over the next six months.

and screw the toadies you're so nobly protecting.

The leaps people make are amazing.
I am asking why the Republicans aren't called out.
I am also asking does publicly blasting your closest allies on many issues bring about productive results?

As far as the 'toadies', were they also toadies when the backed Obama on many issues? Screw them at your peril. We will lose the Senate.

I'm glad they're being called out for once. If they want to subvert Obama on other issues we'll see what sort of Democrats they are.

they were called out on Monday over Iraq:

White House To GOP: If You Want Troops In Iraq, You 'Should Say So'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014690162

and peace less likely.

I have no idea what the hell you are going on about here. Talking about going along with some questionable to stupid agreements that they shouldn't have is silly as hell unless you want to make a case about how easy it is for these fuckers to consistently do the wrong thing and how easily the easily they can find a way to screw the pooch.

This has become a board about excusing entropy and it's forces for short term political considerations and rationalizations supporting societal suicide in a vain effort to avoid being killed.

I personally agree with him.

Classic * administration "with us or against us" strategy. Nice work White House.

The alternatives to the current plan are to do nothing or to go to war.

resolve this"

As opposed to Menendez, Schumer and other Neocon poodles in both parties whose plan is to "sabotage the negotiations so that war becomes inevitable"

Wanna know how we wound up with so many Democrats in Congress supporting the Iraq war? Look at Menendez and Schumer and the other neocon flunkies supporting this.

I support the president on this, but suggesting that anyone who doesn't "wants war" is dishonest. It's like suggesting that anyone who opposed Obamacare wants sick and old people to die.

I lost respect for him the most for repeatedly reaching out to Republicans and Blue Dogs over and over, only to have them shit in his hand over and over.

Fuck them. I hope this helps draw attention to what money grubbing war profiteers and foreign lobbyist shills they are.

What has set Obama apart from the other contenders from the '08 primaries to today is that he politely but firmly tells the bomb-bomb-Iran crowd to fack off. He's paid a price for it and nearly lost last year because of Benghazi and if you think Benghazi wasn't payback for deep-sixing an Iran invasion . . . well you get the picture!

Although the President never called them anything like these false quotes.

Interesting. It's amazing how anti-Semitic some of the Israel at any cost people actually are. I have to wonder if they support Israel because they support the Jewish people or if it's just out of their hatred for Muslims? Sounds like a dog whistle to me........




Yep, I can play these games too.

and, whether they're in it for Israel or for war profits, they aren't putting the best interests of this country first.

the administration that we do not care about what our allies, the administration, and the SOS have agreed to. They do not care to wait 6 months to see how it develops.

and yes, they do want war, and yes these democrats are being influenced by special interests.

The only saving grace is that hopefully Reid won't bring it up

It was the same mindset that voted for the IWR and the War Powers Act.

I won't forget these fools when they call for money.

The reason the repukes are not being called out is because ANYTHING this administration has done they have opposed. Progressives call them out everyday. They called the repukes when the President started getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they opposed it. They called out the repukes on Syria and Libya. The emphasis is on democrats who want by default to destroy the deal by undermining the current negotiations