Trending Topics:

Obama got Senate to reject ‘two of Netanyahu’s demands’ on Iran (but the ‘NYT’ won’t touch that angle)

US Politics
on 42 Comments

What happened yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? The committee voted to subject the Iran deal to congressional oversight: the White House cannot lift sanctions for 30 days following the signing of a deal, in which time Congress gets to review. And the Obama administration signed off on the measure– because it could have been a lot worse.

“We’re disappointed, this wasn’t a good day,” says Kate Gould, a Middle East analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation. “Congress is blessing this idea of Congress having an extra-constitutional vote on an executive agreement.”

The American public is overwhelmingly behind the deal, two to one according to polls, Gould says. That speaks to the political landscape. Who is against a deal with Iran? Only the rightwing Israel lobby. But it has immense support in Congress. As J Street’s Dylan Williams tweeted:

With unanimous compromise #Iran bill vote, Obama got bipartisan panel to reject 2 of Netanyahu’s demands for a deal.

Even though the New York Times coverage of the matter never mentions those underlying dynamics. And Republicans support Netanyahu over Obama by 67 to 16, according to this Bloomberg poll. Dems are the opposite: 76-15.

“The game really has just begun,” Gould said. And the vote was clarifying: Now we know when the contest over the Iran deal will happen. Opponents of the deal could have tried to sabotage the deal this spring before it even comes to pass. But the contest will take place this summer, when Congress will attempt to keep the president from using his authority to waive sanctions in the weeks after a deal is signed. And the grass roots can now mobilize for a struggle over sanctions relief, in July, ahead of the August recess. “The choice will be as clear as day for every member of Congress: Deal or no deal. And no deal means accepting a path that could lead to war.”

Chemi Shalev of Haaretz:

If Corker bill only gives Congress right to vote on its sanctions, rather than Iran deal, then Corker folded (but, hey, don’t tell anyone)

Polls show that by 2-1 Americans support a deal with Iran and oppose the Congress’s inserting itself into negotiations. And when you consider that Israeli PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March was supposed to result in legislation hamstringing the deal, we have already stopped the opposition at key moments.

Politico has a good account of the legislative wrangling over the bill yesterday, with Democrats demanding that the Congressional review period go from 60 days to 30 days and, even more importantly, removing an amendment saying that the administration must certify that Iran does not sponsor terrorism against Americans. These compromises allowed the Obama administration to end its opposition to the bill, so it passed the committee by 19-0.

The Netanyahu demand that the deal recognize the existence of Israel– Marco Rubio’s “Bibi amendment” — was a non-starter.

From the Times account:

The agreement almost certainly means Congress will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement.

The bill threatens the actual negotiations, driving up the cost of securing a deal, the National Iranian American Council warns in a statement from Jamal Abdi:

“The passage of this bill will make already difficult negotiations with Iran even more difficult. The stakes for war and peace, nonproliferation, and the future of the region could not be higher. This is a historic moment and the Senate risks sabotaging it.

“As written, this bill would delay the implementation of a deal by 30 to 82 days, and risk blocking implementation completely. This is not oversight, this is interference. This bill undercuts U.S. negotiating leverage by casting as an open question whether the U.S. can honor it commitments. This does not help our negotiators, it hamstrings them and undermines our credibility.

“The bill risks sending an open invitation to hardliners in Iran to interfere with the negotiations…

But the Iranian American Council is hopeful: “that because the Administration has indicated they can live with this version of the bill, there is a plan in place to ensure it will not derail a deal.

The Times echoes these points in an excellent editorial, A Reckless Act in the Senate on Iran, lambasting the committee for the bill:

Every president has negotiated similar agreements as part of executive authority. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do.

Dylan Williams of J Street, which is working with NIAC to get the deal through, has been more hopeful on twitter. He mocks Bill Kristol over his disappointment that the bill didn’t go nearly as far as the neocons wanted it to:

Billy’s going to have a big sad when the other shoe on the deal cut in the Senate drops…

The New York Times coverage of this story never mentions Netanyahu or the Israel lobby, even though Ben Cardin, the Democratic Senator who negotiated the bill with Bob Corker, is a fervent supporter of Israel. But the readers commenting at the Times site press on these connections.

Frank in the UK

The aim of those who pushed for this bill is to undermine and derail the deal. Senator Tom Cotton said sometime ago that killing the deal will not be an unintended consequence of the bill, it is its main aim. It is sad that on such an important and critical issue of war and peace, when all other great nations have opted for a negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program, a bunch of senators put Israel’s alleged interest ahead of US interest.

Socrates in Verona, NJ:

“War, War, What Are We Waiting For ?!”

Paid For by Sheldon Adelson, AIPAC, Tom Cotton, Bill Kristol and the Committee for Perpetual War In the Middle East

Congress has lost its mind in Sheldon Adelson’s wallet.

How come NYT readers have to go to the readers’ comments to learn an important aspect of this story? James North asks.

 

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

42 Responses

  1. Citizen
    Citizen
    April 15, 2015, 10:41 am

    This is a disgusting disappointment. The Isrsel Firsters in Congress (rabid Jewish Zionist & whores for Adelson-type billions) have clearly let the world know that US diplomacy promises are never set in stone, can be changed in the blink of an eye–why should anyone in the world want to negotiate diplomatically with the USA when it is in the hands of those who are not de facto representatives of the American voting public? Congress gets a hernia straining to block any avoidance of war on Iran, while simultaneously, Congress totally ignores US wars against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and also ignores what’s happening in Aghanistan and ignores the push toward war with Russia via Ukraine & de facto NATO/Israel?

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      April 16, 2015, 2:47 am

      Greetings Citizen,
      … a disgusting disappointement…..
      For whom?
      Iran must have some clout or power that has the greatest Hegemon even dealing with it at such lengths?
      The Americans are not fighting eachother over this. The Dems & Reps are not fighting eachother over this. Iran is no threat to anyone in the ME or Levant, not even the right leaning present Israeli Government.
      This is what happens when a Nation has enough People, land & resources to withstand the present US Hegemon in their region.
      ziusudra
      PS Oh, my God! Sanction Spanking has not diminished Iran since 79. showing that even if they lost against Teddy Roosevelt’s Grandson Kermit & the vile Dulles Brothers in 53, they came back again in 79! Now if even some EU countries or Russia resume trade, all is lost for US export companies to boot. This only leaves us with chewing on our shoes!

  2. Boomer
    Boomer
    April 15, 2015, 10:57 am

    I have no special expertise–and maybe I’m missing something–but it seems to me that this is mainly about domestic politics. If other countries believe the deal is reasonable, they will lift sanctions. Congress can keep the U.S. from doing so, but I doubt that the U.S. can keep other nations from doing so any longer. Russia and China seem ready to do so, and others probably won’t be far behind. This result would inconvenience U.S. firms–and mildly inconvenience Iran–but would largely solve Iran’s problems with sanctions. I wouldn’t be surprised if the hardliners in Iran would actually be pleased to keep the U.S. influence in Iran reduced.

    • Sulphurdunn
      Sulphurdunn
      April 15, 2015, 8:04 pm

      The Russians have begun to lift their sanctions. Others will soon follow. There is money to be made. If push comes to shove in congress, Exxon is a much bigger elephant than AIPAC.

    • NickJOCW
      NickJOCW
      April 16, 2015, 4:46 am

      You are quite right, sanctions are double edged. While it may be highly desirable to buy manufactured goods, it can prove crippling not to be able to sell them. The Chinese benefit most and it’s not just the business but the cultural influences that go with it. Here’s an interesting analysis of the effect of sanctions on the Iranian car market of which Peugeot used to have 26%. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/chinese-carmakers-will-take-on-west-in-iran-if-sanctions-lift

    • Rob Roy
      Rob Roy
      April 16, 2015, 2:14 pm

      Boomer: You say, “Congress can keep the U.S. from doing so…(continuing sanctions)” No, it can’t. Obama has the executive power to sign a binding agreement with France, UK, Russia, China and Germany. Once signed (without any kowtowing to anything the Congress may want or may have voted for), it’s a done deal. All sanctions should be lifted just as Iran wants and when the signing countries agree and sign, the US alone can’t continue sanctioning. (All those signing countries have nuclear weapons themselves…hypocrisy?). Anyone with any sense knows that Iran has never wanted, nor intended to create a nuclear bomb; even the crazy Netanyahu knows that. Israel just doesn’t want to lose it’s status/position in the Middle East (even though it’s been losing it by murdering Palestinians for years).

      • Cummings99
        Cummings99
        April 16, 2015, 6:19 pm

        Agreed! In an interview with Democracy Now, Noam Chomsky, in “Noam Chomsky : Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel’s Goal Isn’t Survival — It’s Regional Dominance.” stated the following:

        “”For both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region.” Chomsky also responds to recent revelations that in 2012 the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, contradicted Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb, concluding that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.”

        Chomsky went on to say, “And for the Republicans in Congress…the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means..” Their consituency is just a matter of following the campaign money.

  3. Boondoggle
    Boondoggle
    April 15, 2015, 11:10 am

    Once it becomes clear that deal is fait accompli, the private sector will play a significant role in preventing the Israel lobby from scuttling the agreement.

    When the EU, UN, and P5+1 start to lift significant elements of the sanctions regime not under the control of the US, American companies like Boeing will surely weigh in and urge congress not to leave US corporations at a competitive disadvantage by dragging their feet on lifting US sanctions.

    Once big business gets involved, opponents of a deal with Iran won’t stand a chance.

  4. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    April 15, 2015, 12:16 pm

    Chris Matthews had Senator Sheehan on to discuss the legislation last night. When Chris asked the Senator does this leave the Dem’s the ability to veto if Republicans decided to try to use this legislation to destroy deal. Sheehan answered in a rather hesitant way “I think so” I was surprised Matthews did not grab onto that hesitant and very wobbly answer.

    If GOP, Schumer, Cardin, Menendez screw up the P5+1 deal. The American public, the world will surely know where to lay the blame. Congress, Israel, I lobby.

    • just
      just
      April 15, 2015, 1:02 pm

      I’ve never seen Jeanne Shaheen as nervous/uncomfortable as when I watched her last night wrt Iran.

      She bounced back when Matthews moved on to Cuba.

      http://www.msnbc.com/hardball

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        April 15, 2015, 1:12 pm

        He had to hear her say “I think so” in such a questionable way. Well sometimes he does not listen and moves on quickly to where he wants to go. So disrespectful on his part.

  5. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    April 15, 2015, 12:32 pm

    Wonder when Senator Schumer will start getting the attention he deserves for being part of the team to undermine the deal? A sizable picture above like Cardin’s.

  6. April 15, 2015, 1:29 pm

    Got any money lying around?

    The conduct of major Jewish groups and pro-Israel groups, always bad, has over the last few months become repugnant. What does that mean? It means it’s time for mega-doses of Jewish victimhood.

    Gather all the pennies you can, find some London bookmaker and double–down on Helen Mirren winning best actress, and Woman in Gold winning best picture, 2015.

    It’s what’s known in the biz as a sure bet.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 15, 2015, 9:46 pm

      And she states something about “justice”…”setting things right” A friend of mine whose mother and rest of family left Germany before the bloody murderous Hitler killing machine was up and running. They could smell death and destruction coming. She received reparations from Germany for 50 some years. Sizable amount each year.

      Think Mirren will step up to the plate and ask for reparations for the Palestinians who have had homes, land etc stolen from them by the Israeli government, illegal settlers?

      One more Hollywood movie focused on the Holocaust. When we hear “never again” for far too many that only applies to Jewish lives

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      April 16, 2015, 10:15 am

      “Gather all the pennies you can, find some London bookmaker and double–down on Helen Mirren winning best actress, and Woman in Gold winning best picture, 2015.”

      Really? Again, you allow this antisemitic garbage here. Yes, Jews who control Hollywood are in a conspiracy to undermine the Iran deal by creating Holocaust movies two years in advance starring Helen Mirren, which will, despite bad reviews, win Best Picture. You guys are sick puppies.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 21, 2015, 12:39 pm

        I’m sorry, how is Helen Mirren winning a Best Picture award for Holocaust-centered movie “anti-semitic”? Seems more Philo-semitic.

        And you, my friend, are always Philo Kvetch.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 21, 2015, 12:46 pm

        “You guys are sick puppies.”

        Hophmi is too modest to mention this, but in fairness to all you “sick puppies”, I feel I must. Hophmi, from the “Faithwashing” thread:

        “Phil agrees with me, by the way, that I put up with a lot of nonsense here; I’ve written him a number of times, and he’s always been a gentleman. I think he’s repulsed by a good deal of the commentary here.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi#sthash.cnT1N6jE.dpuf

        It’s probably too late for me, but at least I can warn the rest of the “sick puppies”. Watch your step! Try not to be too repulsive.

  7. eGuard
    eGuard
    April 15, 2015, 2:54 pm

    And as an extra check there is also the “Staff Picks” from the Readers Comments. Well, not one out of 25 picked mentions Israel/AIPAC/Jewish organizations. Not one.

    However, NYT staff found this worth noting (full text): Los Angeles Mark: The Iran deal is dead. Thank God.

  8. Shingo
    Shingo
    April 15, 2015, 5:43 pm

    As I’ve said before, Obama shares a significant part of the blame here. It was he who jumped on the sanctions bandwagon in 2009, no doubt because of his short sighted desire to demonstrate his tough guy credentials, and now he’s hamstring by a trap of his own making.

    We seem to be forgetting that the sanctions mainly began as executive orders by him, which were later passed into law by the Democrat controlled house.

    I am a big supporter of this deal.

    Obama was young and foolish. He allowed himself to be led by the nose by the pro Israeli advisors.

    • NickJOCW
      NickJOCW
      April 16, 2015, 5:34 am

      it’s worth remembering how much closer Israel was to dragging the US into attacking Iran in those days. Ill advised or not, the sanctions did divert that threat. Imagine where we might be now if those bones had not been thrown to the ravenous Tel Aviv.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 16, 2015, 6:19 am

        it’s worth remembering how much closer Israel was to dragging the US into attacking Iran in those days.

        While the political landscape was more volatile, the facts were the same then as they are now. All 17 US intelligence agencies were reporting then what they are reporting now – that Iran was not developing nukes and made no decision to even start.

        What is worth remembering is that, as Hillary Mann-Leverit revealed, even as Obama delivered his famous message to the Iranian people (March 2009), that he had already ordered his diplomatic corp to lobby for sanctions against Iran.

        As for Israel’s threat, it was always bluster. Netanyahu’s own military leaders refused his orders to carry out any attack.

      • NickJOCW
        NickJOCW
        April 17, 2015, 5:02 am

        Shingo, I agree, no one who actually knew anything about Iran’s nuclear activities believed they were developing nuclear weapons, but a lot who didn’t know anything or deliberately turned facts on their head were insisting they were, as indeed some persons who command media attention do today. To my mind sanctions have ever been to cut Iran down to size as its influence increased after Iraq was clobbered. Then you had the colourful Ahmadinejad, and Iran’s alleged involvement with a variety of questionable groups and activities. A great deal was written, and feared, about Israel having a go at Iran and how the consequences would draw the US into a war. That storm threat has largely passed and Western interests, including commercial interests, are now less well served by continued sanctions while much of the rest of the world is increasingly ignoring them and will do so more when the deal is finalised. That would not good for US prestige.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 18, 2015, 1:56 am

        Shingo, I agree, no one who actually knew anything about Iran’s nuclear activities believed they were developing nuclear weapons, but a lot who didn’t know anything or deliberately turned facts on their head were insisting they were, as indeed some persons who command media attention do today.

        Again I disagree.

        People like John McCain, Lindsay Graham and pretty much ever Iran hawk in Washington who kept repeating that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and wanted to wipe Israel off the map, had to know that the intelligence did not support these claims. They simply stuck to the mantra because it became the consensus. To this day, Obama continues to repeat the BS that Iran has threatened to destroy Israel even though he has to know this is false. It’s not that he’s ignorant, it’s that politically, he cannot state otherwise.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      April 16, 2015, 10:15 am

      “As I’ve said before, Obama shares a significant part of the blame here. It was he who jumped on the sanctions bandwagon in 2009, no doubt because of his short sighted desire to demonstrate his tough guy credentials, and now he’s hamstring by a trap of his own making. . .I am a big supporter of this deal.”

      Then you should have been a big supporter of the sanctions, without with this deal would not have happened.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 21, 2015, 12:52 pm

        “Then you should have been a big supporter of the sanctions, without with this deal would not have happened.”

        You really, really, want Iran to have an extra-legal nuclear program like Israel’s, don’t you? You won’t be satisfied unless Iran gets right down in the nuclear waste with Israel.

        Sorry, but the Iranians seem to have more civilized ideas. I doubt they want to Join Israel and North Korea as nuclear rogues.

        Or is there some perfectly rational reason I have overlooked why Israel is entitled to illegal nuclear weapons and an uncontrolled, un-inspected nuclear program? Would you please explain it to us, “Hophmi?” Reach out and touch us with the reason.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 21, 2015, 7:56 pm

        Neither the sanctions nor the deal were necessary. Iran was legally entitled to pursue its nuclear power programme under the non-proliferation treaty, and there is no evidence and no good reason to believe that it was doing anything forbidden by that treaty.

        The sanctions were just a cruel and unjustified measure to make Iranians suffer because Israel wanted them to. (And perhaps for Israel to avoid paying Iran the money it owes)

  9. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 15, 2015, 7:06 pm

    Mekel is already sounding the Isareli alarm bell from the 5th nuclear capable deck of the submarine that she deliverd otherday to Israel,warning Russia not to supply ss-300 before sanction is lifted by all P 5 +Germnay .

  10. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 15, 2015, 7:09 pm

    “Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, both former secretaries of state and prominent Iran hawks, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal insisting the framework doesn’t go far enough.

    But that wasn’t their position just a couple years ago. In a 2013 op-ed for the same paper entitled “What a Final Iran Deal Must Do,” Kissinger and Shultz laid out their ideal nuclear pact with Iran thusly: “a strategically significant reduction in the number of centrifuges, restrictions on its installation of advanced centrifuges and a foreclosure of its route toward a plutonium-production capability. Activity must be limited to a plausible civilian program subject to comprehensive monitoring as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

    That prescription is impressively consistent with what the P5+1 and Iran announced this month. Why does Kissinger and Shultz’s opinion seem to have changed now that their 2013 formula has come to fruition?

    Simple: If they move the goal posts, peaceful diplomacy can never score.”
    http://www.newsweek.com/gop-hawks-flip-flop-iran-deal-322364

    • Sulphurdunn
      Sulphurdunn
      April 15, 2015, 8:10 pm

      In a just world, Henry Kissinger would have been swabbing toilets in a federal prison for the last 40 years.

  11. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 15, 2015, 7:10 pm

    “Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, has criticized the Iran talks from the start. He vehemently opposed the November 2013 interim agreement that partially rolled back Iran’s nuclear enrichment and lifted some superficial economic sanctions while the parties negotiated.

    The minor sanctions relief, Graham said at the time, sent “exactly the wrong signal” because “you can’t trust the Iranians.” The temporary arrangement “leaves in place one of the most sophisticated enrichment programs around.” It was a bad deal that would enable, instead of block, Iran’s path to the bomb.

    But last week, Graham sung a different tune about the interim agreement. In arguing against the framework deal announced this month, he advocated “keeping the interim deal in place that’s been fairly successful” and using it as the basis for imposing a more restrictive arrangement on Iran.

    That’s quite a strategy—to oppose every new advance in the diplomatic negotiations until a further step is achieved, and then insist on keeping in place what he previously opposed.”

    http://www.newsweek.com/gop-hawks-flip-flop-iran-deal-322364

  12. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 15, 2015, 7:11 pm

    “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the most vocal opponents of a deal with Iran, performed this “moving the goal posts” trick in a similar fashion when he suggested last week that a nuclear deal with Iran would be acceptable only if it included a “clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.”

    That’s new. Never before has Netanyahu included that as a stipulation for properly curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. ”
    http://www.newsweek.com/gop-hawks-flip-flop-iran-deal-322364

  13. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 15, 2015, 7:12 pm

    “As Senator Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, a hard-liner among hard-liners in Congress, said last January, “The end of these negotiations…is very much an intended consequence” of Republican opposition. “A feature, not a bug, so to speak.”

    These hawks don’t just oppose this deal, but any deal. The insincerity of their alternative proposals is made clear in how they alter their positions when diplomacy yields the solutions they previously demanded. ”
    http://www.newsweek.com/gop-hawks-flip-flop-iran-deal-322364

    From-
    John Glaser is the former editor of Antiwar.com

  14. Bandolero
    Bandolero
    April 15, 2015, 7:13 pm

    I think it’s a pretty good victory for Obama. Here’s why.

    Obama and the P5+1 can now go on and terminating the deal. I expect the deal have the following parameters: Iran is committing to some overviews and limitations of it’s nuclear programm, while P5+1 commits to drop all UNSC and unilateral sanctions regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. In the negotiated contract there will be something like a clause, like when US Congress blocks lifting of US sanctions, other P5+1 will go ahead anyway and regard US secondary sanctions as sanctions against them and fight back, while Iran has fewer nuclear commitments to fulfill, if congress blocks US sanction relief.

    For Iran, US sanctions don’t matter much, if UNSC sanctions are lifted and EU & China won’t accept US secondary sanctions on Iran anymore. For ordinary Iranians it means they need to fly Airbus only instead of being able to choose between Airbus and Boeing, and similar, they go drive French & German cars, and no GM & Ford. For Iran’s oil & gas business it means, EU, Russia & China will help develop it without US. So what?

    So, when the deal is concluded, US congress will be in a weak position: not lifting US sanctions would simply mean the US economy can’t get market shares in Iran, while Iran has fewer nuclear commitments to fulfill, and is not hurt much at all by US unilateral sanctions. EU, China & Russia will be happy to provide everything what the US economy would have hoped to sell to Iran. And, of course, Iran would have to sell it’s oil for Euros instead of Dollars, so sorry.

    That may well be the situation when the US congress gets the deal to review US sanctions relief regarding Iran.

    • traintosiberia
      traintosiberia
      April 15, 2015, 7:40 pm

      Ukraine crisis has unfreed the Russian hope of any respite from US assualts .Pivot to Asia has done same for China. Without these two events we still could be seeing same charade that P 5+1 has orchestrated over Iran .
      This also means Israel will cling to the rest causing everything it can to keep the situation always tense and wired around Islamophobia in addition to providing periodic discovery of Iranian mal- intents or possible crimes agaisnt West or of sleeper cells in the West .

  15. Citizen
    Citizen
    April 16, 2015, 5:16 am

    Looks like AIPAC’s Cotton Kids won: Iran’s response to Congressional intervention compromise Obama caved into is “No deal unless no sanctions.”

    Simultaneous breaking news blurb overnight: “Israel applauds US deal.”

  16. Citizen
    Citizen
    April 16, 2015, 6:11 am

    From dailykos:

    Senator Coons offered a new definition of what a “bad deal” is in the context of the amended bill:

    “If the administration can’t persuade 34 senators of whatever party that this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it’s really a bad agreement,” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said. “That’s the threshold.”
    So now we only have to convince 34 out of 100 Senators that it’s ok to proceed? Ouch, AIPAC, you really hurt me. “Don’t throw me in that briar patch.”

  17. just
    just
    April 16, 2015, 8:27 am

    I found this @ Taxi’s place:

    “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy – Red Ice Radio/Youtube and Public Opinion…”

    Hop over and have a listen. It’s well worth your time: https://platosguns.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/how-the-israel-lobby-took-control-of-u-s-foreign-policy-red-ice-radioyoutube-and-public-opinion-youtube/

    It’s with Jeff Gates and Henrik Palmgren.

    (‘Organized crime, the syndicate, massive manipulation and displacement of facts, ‘the Washington consensus’, master myth-makers, sophisticated storytellers, fractals and aggregates’… kaboom!)

  18. marc b.
    marc b.
    April 16, 2015, 8:55 am

    OT, but see also another example of NYT journalistic standards. Hopefully this will give interventionist liberals pause the next time they are bleating on about the next humanitarian catastrophe to be solved by drones strikes and no-fly zones.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/04/the-richard-engel-kidnapping-fake-moa-scooped-msm-by-28-month.html#more

    • just
      just
      April 16, 2015, 9:05 am

      Thanks for linking that, marc b.

      From the link to MoA:

      “Neither has NBC’s Richard Engel come clean on this nor have the NYT or HuffPo really dug out the back story.

      “That back story would reveal that “western” secret services, with the help of para-government organizations and some paid Syrian “revolutionaries”, created false stories and videos about the “bad Assad regime”. That back story would show that “western” journalists from outlets like NBC, the NYT and HuffPo willing took part in and propagandized those scams even when they were obvious lies.”

      Never mind that Engel’s ‘reporting’ in general has become increasingly biased and abysmal.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        April 16, 2015, 12:33 pm

        just, apparently judy miller et al didn’t make a dent in the NYT editorial board. I used to buy the sunday edition for the entertaining fluff like the book review, style section, etc. but I won’t spend a cent on that rag anymore.

  19. hophmi
    hophmi
    April 16, 2015, 10:13 am

    “Polls show that by 2-1 Americans support a deal with Iran and oppose the Congress’s inserting itself into negotiations.”

    Which ones? Americans overwhelmingly support Congressional oversight on the Iran deal. 4-1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/14/usa-today-suffolk-university-poll-iran/25753037/

Leave a Reply