Skip to main content

Not to be outdone by "bipartisan" senators attempting to derail President Obama's diplomatic campaign to persuade Iran to stop developing a nuclear bomb, the warhawks in the House have added their voices.

63 Bipartisan House Members seek Iran sanctions vote in Senate
Democrats and Republicans urge Senate leaders to tighten sanctions against the Islamic Republic
Note how cleverly they worked in the dog whistle "Islamic" into the title of their press release.

Observers caution that Iran has deep distrust of the U.S. and its motives and worry that imposing new sanctions at a point when Iran has come to the table and is making concessions will most likely cause diplomacy to fail. For many of the GOP, this is win-win.  They get their long sought after war with Iran and they get to make President Obama's diplomacy fail.

John Kerry said, new sanctions “could lead our international partners to think that we’re not an honest broker.”

The White House has warned that Congress is providing ammunition to Iranian hardliners who want to undermine Rouhani’s more moderate approach. [WP]

According to the Washington Post, White House press secretary Jay Carney has accused lawmakers of trying to spoil negotiations in Geneva as part of a “march to war.”

The Nation quotes the powerful pro-Israel lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as pushing hard for new sanctions

“AIPAC continues to support congressional action to adopt legislation to further strengthen sanctions, and there will absolutely be no pause, delay or moratorium in our efforts.”
But the National Jewish Democratic Council has taken a more moderate approach:
NJDC congratulates President Obama and Secretary Kerry on the success of the P5+1 sanctions in bringing Iran to the negotiating table. We firmly believe that a diplomatic agreement to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapon capability is preferable to military engagement.

The President should have every tool available to ensure the success of the interim agreement. Additional sanctions, such as those proposed by the Menendez-Kirk Bill, are a welcome option for the Administration should they be necessary. We encourage Congress to support the President’s foreign policy initiative by making stronger measures available should they be required. Final action on the legislation should be dependent upon Iran’s full compliance with its obligations.  

Despite the best efforts of Congressional Hawks to derail the neotiations, last Sunday there was a breakthrough.

Sunday Secretary of State John Kerry said:

"As of that day, for the first time in almost a decade, Iran's nuclear program will not be able to advance, and parts of it will be rolled back, while we start negotiating a comprehensive agreement to address the international community's concerns about Iran's program
The NY Times reported that
Iran and a group of six world powers completed a deal on Sunday that will temporarily freeze much of Tehran’s nuclear program starting next Monday, Jan. 20, in exchange for limited relief from Western economic sanctions.
This must have the congressional hawks gnashing their teeth.

If you'd like to see if your House member or Senator is part of the "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" coalition, look below the fold.

Those who have not been following the Hawai'i senate race between progressive incumbent Schatz and conserva-dem Hanabusa may not realize that Sen Brian Schatz (D-HI) (who is Jewish) is not part of the bomb Iran coalition, while his opponent, Rep Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI), has joined the AIPAC supporters in trying to derail negotiations.

House members who signed the letter urging the Senate to pass new Iran sanctions: (note that the House has already passed a bill to increase sanctions)
Andy Barr
Kerry Bentivolio
Gus Bilirakis                                          
Kevin Brady
Susan Brooks
Paul C. Broun, M.D.
Vern Buchanan                                  
Chris Collins
Henry Cuellar
Rodney Davis                                          
Ron DeSantis
Mario Diaz-Balart                                      
Michele Bachmann
Jeff Duncan                                            
Blake Farenthold
Bill Flores                                            
Trent Franks
Rodney Frelinghuysen                          
Jim Gerlach
Chris Gibson
BGene Green
Colleen Hanabusa
Brian Higgins
George Holding
Richard Hudson
Mike Kelly                                            
Jack Kingston
Adam Kinzinger                                
Lynn Jenkins                                          
David P. Joyce                                
Peter King                                            
Doug LaMalfa                  
Leonard Lance
Robert Latta          
Doug Lamborn
Daniel Lipinski                                
Billy Long                                            
Michael T. McCaul                                      
Patrick McHenry                                
Grace Meng
Michael Michaud
Jeff Miller
Steve Pearce                                          
Scott Perry                                            
Ted Poe                                        
Tom Price, M.D.                                
Trey Radel                                            
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen                                    
Peter J. Roskam                                
Paul Ryan                                              
Steve Scalise
Pete Sessions                                          
Brad Sherman
Steve Stivers
Juan Vargas
Brad Schneider                                
Aaron Schock
Steve Stockman                                
Randy Weber                                    
Brad Wenstrup                                  
Lynn Westmoreland
Roger Williams
Kevin Yoder    

Senators who are co-sponsoring the New Iran Sanctions bill
Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL]    
Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]    
Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]    
Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]    
McCain, John [R-AZ]    
Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]    
Rubio, Marco [R-FL]    
Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]    
Cornyn, John [R-TX]    
Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]    
Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]    
Begich, Mark [D-AK]    
Corker, Bob [R-TN]    
Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR]    
Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]    
Landrieu, Mary L. [D-LA]    
Moran, Jerry [R-KS]    
Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]    
Roberts, Pat [R-KS]    
Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]    
Johanns, Mike [R-NE]    
Hagan, Kay [D-NC]    
Cruz, Ted [R-TX]    
Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]    
Blunt, Roy [R-MO]    
Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]    
Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]    
Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]    
Coats, Daniel [R-IN]    
Vitter, David [R-LA]    
Risch, James E. [R-ID]    
Isakson, Johnny [R-GA]    
Boozman, John [R-AR]    
Fischer, Deb [R-NE]    
Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]    
Thune, John [R-SD]    
Coburn, Tom [R-OK]    
Chambliss, Saxby [R-GA]    
Toomey, Pat [R-PA]    
Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]    
Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY]    
Inhofe, James M. [R-OK]    
Lee, Mike [R-UT]    
Scott, Tim [R-SC]    
Portman, Rob [R-OH]    
Alexander, Lamar [R-TN]    
Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]    
Barrasso, John [R-WY]    
Johnson, Ron [R-WI]    
Hoeven, John [R-ND]    
Burr, Richard [R-NC]    
Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]    
Heller, Dean [R-NV]    
McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]    
Cochran, Thad [R-MS]    
Crapo, Mike [R-ID]    
Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL]    
Sessions, Jeff [R-AL]                                          

Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:02 AM PT: UPDATE:  Mea Culpa - an alert commenter pointed out that there really is no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and that, in fact, U.S. intelligence sources say they are not.

Originally posted to Karen from Maui on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 01:45 PM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.


Congresspeople pushing sanctions are trying to:

32%49 votes
11%17 votes
1%2 votes
9%14 votes
21%33 votes
24%37 votes

| 153 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How many of these politicians who want to (12+ / 0-)

    put an additional squeeze on Iran are prepared to send their own children or grandchildren to fight the war that is always lurking in our past and future history?  Israel itself is divided on this issue.
    And do take note that while Iran does not yet have a nuclear bomb, others in the region do, and we don't know with which side they will align.  

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 02:18:06 PM PST

  •  John McCain Singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" (5+ / 0-)

  •  IMVHO (7+ / 0-)

    This is about making sure that "hardliners" always have the upper hand in foreign policy discussions. It is both a political battle over and for resources AND a discursive battle to have the narrative of foreign policy never sway from the hard line.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 03:33:03 PM PST

  •  your poll doesn't have an (9+ / 0-)

    "all of the above" option.  

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 03:33:22 PM PST

  •  Trey Radel? (0+ / 0-)


  •  "The entire deal is dead." (8+ / 0-)

    In a transcript of the interview, which was conducted on Saturday and posted online on Monday, Time said it asked Zarif what would happen if Congress imposed new sanctions, even if they did not go into effect for six months.

    "The entire deal is dead." replied Zarif.

    The people who signed that letter either want war or for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. There is no other option.

    "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

    by Hayate Yagami on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 03:38:23 PM PST

  •  With a couple of exceptions, (4+ / 0-)

    McCain, and maybe a couple others, the rest are "chickenhawks" who never served a day in uniform. War with Iran, which some seem to favor would be 'the end' of us as a democracy, and would truly bankrupt us, the Kochs, and others,  might want that, but it is insane to anyone else. The real fight going on, between extreme Shia and (equally extreme) Wahabi Islam, needs to be fought by the respective groups, not us.

    May you live in interesting times--Chinese curse

    by oldcrow on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 03:41:16 PM PST

    •  McCain is not that different (0+ / 0-)

      from the chickenhawks. He bombed mostly civilians from miles up in the sky and never had to see the dead and never had to carry the body pieces. Like the majority of veterans he has never spent a day on the real front line where most of the killings occurs.

      It's not surprising that such vets love the idea of war. Having worn the uniform makes them a big deal back home, they believe  that wars are glorious--even as they know next to nothing about the terrorism of war.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:01:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The new vets from the Mideast (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        seem to be more realistic about war and understand that it is a very bad idea to start wars without a clear path to "victory" and a persuasive and immediate threat.

        Probably because their war was horrifyingly up close and personal.

        If you take a look at Hawaii's Rep Tulsi Gabbard, she is supported by Vote Vets and they primarily vote PEACE.

  •  Obama has already declared it vetoed (5+ / 0-)

    if it gets to his desk.
    Is that part of a kabuki play here? To show the Iranians that he's serious? That he's willing to buck his own Congress, his own party, to keep his word in the peace negotiations?
    I'm having a hard time understanding why any Democrat is signing on to this.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Jan 13, 2014 at 06:03:49 PM PST

    •  Even if he does veto it there is a very good (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      chance that the veto will be overridden.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:27:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not too hard to understand really. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karen from Maui, mickT
      I'm having a hard time understanding why any Democrat is signing on to this.
      Short answer: Aipac.
      Long answer: In foreign policy, the difference between the "end of history" neoconservatives & the "indispensible nation" neoliberals is a difference of degree rather than of kind. On almost any question concerning U.S. involvement in the Middle East, the 2 camps are basically on the same side.

      Really, within the foreign-policy establishment, Obama is the outlier on this matter.

  •  I hope Schatz nails Hanabusa on this, big time. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frostbite, Karen from Maui

    Can you edit the House list to include party and state?  It might be helpful to those who aren't familiar with reps from their non-home states.

    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

    by nailbender on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 03:45:51 AM PST

  •  I expected to see my 2 senators' names listed -- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dinazina, frostbite, Karen from Maui

    Inhofe and Coburn -- but it literally makes me sick to see the names of so many Democratic senators.

    Daddy Warbucks just loves it.

    "Portion of the adolescent prisoners in solitary on Rikers Island who have been diagnosed with a mental illness: 7/10." Tell someone.

    by RJDixon74135 on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 04:16:12 AM PST

    •  I'm not surprise to see Blumenthal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melfunction, nicki37

      one of my Senators on the list. He is a multimillionaire who cares nothing about those who do the dirty work in wars. As someone who lied about his service in Vietnam, it's difficult for him to go any lower. But, he apparently has no limit to his warmongering from the safety of an office in Washington.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 10:08:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  DSCC (5+ / 0-)

    Please contact the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

    Phone (202) 224-2447
    Fax (202) 969-0354
    For general information email

    Please tell them clearly that undermining the President in the negotations with Iran (via, I think, bill S.1881, sponsored by Robert Menendez, D-NJ) is unacceptable, and tell them how much it will lead you to not support their campaigns.

    For the price of a phone call - sufficient phone calls - who knows, we might avert a war.  As it is, the President has a tough enough job with Iran, why are we adding to his headaches at home?  

    The time for new sanctions is if and when the negotiations with Iran fail.

  •  To Booker (4+ / 0-)

    Dear Senator Booker,

    The President has a tough enough job negotiating with Iran.  I notice with dismay that you and Senator Menendez are busy undermining his position with your Senate Bill S.1881, that would impose new sanctions on Iran, not waiting for a result to the negotiations.

    If your Senate shenanigans result in a failure of negotiations, and result in a war, I will hold you and Senator Menendez responsible for that.

    As it is, I will not support or contribute to any Democratic Senator in the 2014 elections until you postpone a vote on S.1881 until the six month negotiation period with Iran is completed.

    •  Hello, how about supporting D Sens who OPPOSE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karen from Maui

      the bill, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

      There's no such thing as a free market!

      by Albanius on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:01:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because.... (0+ / 0-)

        1. I haven't seen opposition, only not-yet-signed-up as co-sponsor.

        2. I want real opposition, not just  "I oppose it, but will do nothing practical to prevent its passage", and that comes by going after the whole group.

        3. The Chair of the DSCC is a co-sponsor of the bill; though he is not from my state, I want to apply pressure to him.

        •  Are you indifferent to GOP control of the Senate? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karen from Maui

          Are there no other issues you care about on which GOP control would make a difference?

          Al Franken, who is not on the list of co-sponsors is up for re-election this year.  OK if the GOP replaces him?

          There's no such thing as a free market!

          by Albanius on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do care... (0+ / 0-)

            But a war with Iran, a war that could grow into a general Middle East war, dwarfs all those concerns.  Thousands of lives and billions of dollars down the drain.

            If your priorities are different, please calibrate your response to the Senators accordingly.  

            But please make the phone call(s) - the little drops in the bucket - that might prevent war.  

            •  Senators who are keeping mum (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              are doing it because they are working to derail this AIPAC-driven bill behind the scenes.

              Once they come out and say they oppose it, they lose their effectiveness.

              Don't assume that silence means these Senators aren't working hard to preserve the diplomatic solution.

              Wait and see before condemning them.  Sometimes when you are up against something like this, diplomacy in the SENATE is just as important as diplomacy with Iran!

            •  Not just thousands, it could easily end up with (0+ / 0-)

              millions dead depending on how hard Iran fights back.  After all, one of the ideas is to respond to Iran closing the straits by using nuclear weapons against their cities to break their will to fight. Considering Tehran has about 8 million in the city and 14 million if you count the suburbs you can see just what would happen.  The only other alternative would be a massive ground invasion which would mean bringing back the draft to provide the millions of troops required to invade and occupy Iran.

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 07:08:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Elizabeth Warren (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karen from Maui, chuck utzman

        According to The Real News, Elizabeth Warren is in favor of supporting the President's diplomacy and opposes the bill.  link

  •  Menendez deserves to be primaried for this n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Arun, frostbite, Karen from Maui
  •  Names (4+ / 0-)

    Here are the Democrats in that list of House members:

    Henry Cuellar
    Gene Green
    Colleen Hanabusa
    Brian Higgins
    Daniel Lipinski                              
    Grace Meng
    Michael Michaud                                  
    Brad Sherman
    Juan Vargas
    Brad Schneider                                

    If you want to present the list of Senate co-sponsors in a simpler fashion, you could note that all of the Senate Republicans are on board except Paul and Flake and then just list the 16 Democrats.

    Thanks for posting this!

  •  Pat Buchanan (4+ / 0-)

    If Pat Buchanan said the sun rises in the east, I would double-check.  But still:

    Today the Senate is about to vote Israel a virtual blank check — for war on Iran. Reads Senate bill S.1881:

    If Israel is "compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program," the United States "should stand with Israel and provide ... diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in the defense of its territory, people and existence."

    Inserted in that call for U.S. military action to support an Israeli strike on Iran, S.1881 says that, in doing so, we should follow our laws and constitutional procedures.

    Nevertheless, this bill virtually hands over the decision on war to Bibi Netanyahu who is on record saying: "This is 1938. Iran is Germany."

    Is this the man we want deciding whether America fights her fifth war in a generation in the Mideast? Do we really want to outsource the decision on war in the Persian Gulf, the gas station of the world, to a Likud regime whose leaders routinely compare Iran to Nazi Germany?

    The bill repeatedly asserts that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program."

    Yet in both 2007 and 2011, U.S. intelligence declared "with high confidence" that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

    Where is the Senate's evidence for its claim? Why has Director of National Intelligence James Clapper not been called to testify as to whether Tehran has made the decision to go for a bomb?

    Why are the American people being kept in the dark?

    Are we being as misled, deceived and lied to about Iran's "weapons of mass destruction," as we were about Iraq's?

    The bill says that in a final deal Iran must give up all enrichment of uranium. However, we have already been put on notice by President Hassan Rouhani that this is an ultimatum Iran cannot accept.

    Even the reformers of Iran's Green Revolution of 2009 back their country's right to a peaceful nuclear program including enrichment.

    Senate bill S.1881 imposes new sanctions if Iran fails to live up to the interim agreement or fails to come to a final agreement in six months.

    Yet the Senate knows that Iran has warned that if new sanctions are voted during negotiations, they will walk away from the table.

    Why is the Senate risking, or even inviting, a blowup in these talks?

  •  "Note how cleverly they worked (0+ / 0-)

    in the dog whistle "Islamic" into the title of their press release."

    Uh Karen, you do realize that Iran's official name is the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Iran has also worked the "dog whistle" into the name of their country.

    Here's a tweet from Rouhani on the deal which will stop  their nuclear program:

    " Our relationship w/ the world is based on Iranian nation's interests. In #Geneva agreement world powers surrendered to Iranian nation's will."

    Doesn't sound like Iran feels this deal is a "win-win".

    •  Yes I do....but I also have mistrust of motives (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      True.  But given that most people in the U.S. refer to the Islamic Republic of Iran as just Iran, I much mistrust their motives in spelling this out.

      The rightwing is apparently still fighting the Crusades and reminding their supporters that Iran is an officially Islamic country, IMO, was deliberate.

      I was thinking that they weren't just politely calling Iran by its full name.

      •  Your mistrust is misplaced. (0+ / 0-)

        It's Iran that we should mistrust for good reason. Sorry for my snarky tone in my earlier response, but you're being VERY naïve if you trust Iran to negotiate in good faith. This is the same country that attacked our embassy, bombed the Lebanon Marine barracks (thru Hezbollah), killed many of our soldiers in Iraq and conducts terrorism worldwide.
        And the rightwing doesn't have to remind everyone that Iran is Islamic. Everyone knows that. I think they were just referring to their official name.

        •  "Naive" = AIPAC talking point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
        •  MajorMinor's mistrust in diplomacy is misplaced (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Karen from Maui

          likewise unfortunately my Senators Schumer and Gillibrand.

          The agreement requires exceptionally intrusive inspections - it does not depend on trust, but verification.

          Iran is not a monolith; the Republican Guard is led by people who sacked the US embassy, but the new Rouhani administration is at the other, pragmatic end of Iran's limited official political spectrum.

          An agreement that would relieve sanctions which have imposed serious hardship on the Iranian economy, in return for Iran abandoning high enrichment of Uranium and Plutonium production, would be in Iran's national interest.  

          Completing such an agreement, rather than having to choose between preventive war or allowing Iran to develop an effective nuclear weapons capability, is in the US national interest.  It is even in Israel's national interest, right wing Likud leadership notwithstanding.

          Lets make a deal.

          There's no such thing as a free market!

          by Albanius on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:21:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What is your position on Saudi Arabia? (0+ / 0-)

          Their citizens attacked our country. They princes are supporting massive terrorists campaigns throughout the Middle East.

          Wanna match Sunni car bomb deaths sponsored by Saudi vs. Iranian terrorists acts? Hardly a day goes by that Saudi car bomb doesn't go off in Iraq. The Islamic forces use the car bomb to start assaults in Syria.

          That is how they took over the Christian village of Ma'lulah and kidnapped the 12 nuns. Something our Western media that never covers unless it fits their agenda. Which is why you can go on a tirade about Iranian 'terrorism' but the only thing you have is a 30 year old attack against foreign troops. Yes, the people that attacked our marine barracks were attacking foreign troops. Hizballah was not yet formed, but folks that would later become members most assuredly participated. But attacking foreign troops brought in to support a fascist government is not terrorism. Sure, it is easy to say in the states, but if someone sent troops to the U.S. to impose Sen Paul as president, I'll be the first to attack said troops. Does that make me a terrorist?

          Our media not just ignored the Sunni terrorists in Syria, they mocked it. Sen McCain met with them and said they were good people. Now he is bashing Obama for not doing enough to stop them because they happen to get so big they not only took over Ar Raqqah in Syria (for which McCain said nothing), but retook Fallujah and Ar Ramadi.

  •  "President Obama's diplomatic campaign to persuade (3+ / 0-)

    "President Obama's diplomatic campaign to persuade Iran to stop developing a nuclear bomb." Dare one point out the really sad misrepresentation in that bit of text? NO ONE, other than certain loonies and people that reject a whole host of conclusions by folks who have actually examined the Iranian nuclear industry, has ever concluded that Iran is in any way "developing a nuclear bomb." That is a particularly pernicious fraud to perpetuate by even mentioning it.

    Proving the negative is difficult, of course, but the UN agencies and our own and the intelligence entities of most of the rest of the world, even including Israel, have said that's not in the offing.

    And of course one dare not mention that Israel, headed by the Likudniks, has well over 200 nuclear weapons, and strategies to detonate them and the means to deliver them, including cruise missiles fired from submarines that Israel, the Jewish state, bought from those famous U-boat makers, the Germans.

    I think if President Obama has a diplomatic campaign under way, it's much more about keeping the conscienceless idiots that are carrying the water for more stupid warwarwar in the Mideast, people who are immune to the consequences that would follow.

    I offer these sentiments as just a little Vietnam vet who is once again having nightmares, thanks to this latest horror show, thanks to the inroads AIPAC and others including some commercial interests have made into our institutions of government and policy. Yeah, you dudes and dude-ettes get "creds" with a few of your constituents and people who can influence or scare them, and campaign money from certain influence buyers, but you are doing the same crap that various governments in Europe did in the runup to World War I. See, e.g., "The Proud Tower," "The Guns of August," and a lot of recent scholarship by people trying to figure out the real roots of that incredible spasm of violence and its sequelae, e.g.

    "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

    by jm214 on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 09:34:03 AM PST

    •  Thanks for this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Do you have some sources I can update this diary with?

      •  A few... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karen from Maui

        Search "does Iran have a nuclear weapons program" for lots more, including the fear-mongering bullshit from a lot of different sources. It's a matter of faith for so many, like "evolution" and "which way the toilet paper roll goes on the holder."

        Whether it's looked at from capability or from intent, there's simply no credible evidence that Iran intends to build, or has the capability of putting together and delivering, a nuclear weapon. Not even clear that they want the "latency" that nations like Japan have, able to quickly ramp up a Bomb though with none, as far as we ordinary people know, in their growing arsenal. They ain't perfect, they have their idiot hard-liners just like us and the Israelis and most everyone else, and sneaks and spies and covert actors too. But it sure looks like they have maybe a healthier approach to the Great Game than most of the rest of us, with our willing belief that Others are committed to Destroying our Sacred Way of Life that we are so busily destroying ourselves, from "rule of Law" and the Constitution to a viable economy for most of us to a survivable environment for the whole human population.

        "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

        by jm214 on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:39:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you!!!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I can't believe that I swallowed the pro-war misinformation....especially after the Iraq "weapons of mass destruction" BS.

          •  Good people are easy to sucker. They have trouble (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Karen from Maui

            believing that the other kind can be as devious and evil as they too often are. And ignorant people are really easy to sucker when it comes to believing the worst about "The Other." Most of us are ignorant and kept that way by a whole lot of dys- (not dis-, worse than that)information. Bless you for working the good side of the street...

            "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

            by jm214 on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 05:13:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Here's a source (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      saying that U.S. intelligence thinks that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons.

      •  Actually, the article didn't say that at all. (0+ / 0-)

        It said that Iran is doing research that would lead to a weapon. At the time of the article (2 years ago) they hadn't yet decided to BUILD a weapon.
        However according to David Albright:
        "Albright's group estimates that with the centrifuges Iran already has, it could enrich uranium to sufficient purity to make a bomb in as little as six months, should it decide to do so.

        It is not known precisely what other technical hurdles Iran would have to overcome, but Albright and many other experts believe that if it decides to proceed, the country has the scientific knowledge to design and build a crude working bomb in as little as a year. It would take as long as three years, Albright estimated, for Iran to build a warhead small enough to fit on a ballistic missile."
        So Iran clearly has left the option open to build a bomb.

  •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frostbite, mookins

    Thank you for posting that list of foreign agents posing as US representatives.  

    I'm sorry to say this but what is the alternative here except BDS?  This extremism in Israel isn't going away and it is an albatross around the necks of the progressive community.

    I'm especially ashamed of Gillibrand.  I thought she was great.  Not any more.

  •  These people who seek war instead of peace (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mookins, Karen from Maui

    are despicable and make me sick. We have a chance thanks to President Obama and Secretary Kerry to deal diplomatically with Iran but the Hawks all want war...........

    Mankind does not need these delusional idiots in Congress. Worse than idiots, craven idiots who just seek to be re-elected at the cost of anything. Yes, they would vote for war if it meant keeping their position of power and wealth generation.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 12:01:25 PM PST

  •  It's great- the whole world sees us as we are, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karen from Maui, Portlaw, mickT

    warmongers who won't take yes for an answer.

    And I see my Senator Maria Cantwell: Her form response noted President Obama's initiative, detailed its provisions, then went on to ignore it all, saying she supports continued sanctions to force Iran to comply.

    She sent me a nice official fuck-you and lost my vote.

    I remember her shaking hands on the Bainbridge ferry: this was back when I lived in Seattle and would bicycle from the Bainbridge terminal to work lawn mowing, on the way home I'd be pretty dusty and a bit tired so I'd lie down on the bench seat and close my eyes.

    When I sat up at her greeting she stepped back in fright, her aide bravely moving into position to defend her from the lower-class assault I threatened.

    That was reality to them. For fuck's sake, I was just very slowly sitting up, all 5'6" and 140 lbs of me.

    They have many illusions. I no longer have any.

  •  How is keeping the economic sanctions (0+ / 0-)

    on Iran the same as advocating war with Iran? I don't get it.

    •  Why NEW Sanctions will Derail Progress (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Portlaw, mickT

      After the U.S. backed Shah was overthrown in 1979, the U.S. seized his loot ... er froze his assets so that the new government could not access them. This was during the time that Iran held 52 hostages for a year and a half (until Reagan was elected)

      Then Iraq invaded Iran.  Iran and the U.S. negotiated the release of the hostages.

      The U.S. backed Iraq and imposed sanctions on Iran.  (Iraq went on to use poison gas...nice friends we backed)

      The current sanctions (embargo on dealings with Iran by the United States, and a ban on selling aircraft and repair parts) went into effect in 1996.

      In 2005 Ahmadinejad was accused of starting up uranium enrichment for the purpose of creating a nuclear bomb.  

      In 2007 the U.S. intelligence said that Iran was NOT seeking to build nuclear devices.  Israel disputed this HOTLY.

      In 2010 the IAEA claimed there were indications that Iran was enriching uranium

      Fast forward to this Sunday.

      Sanctions seem to have worked and Iran is negotiating with the U.S. and other countries to eliminate their enriched uranium.  There was a breakthrough and an agreement in principle was reached with an agreement also to keep talking about putting international inspections in place.

      When negotiations started, AIPAC, seeing that tensions were declining, Iran was being brought into the international community suddenly started pushing the U.S. Congress into MORE NEW SANCTIONS.

      Now, that just isn't the way sanctions work.  You put the sanctions on to bring the other party to the negotiating table.

      Iran is at the negotiating table.

      New sanctions will torpedo these negotiations -- which is AIPAC's aim.

    •  Advocating sanctions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      isn't the same as advocating war.

      •  Advocating INCREASED Sanctions IS (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Portlaw, mickT

        Because it derails negotiations while you guys advocate pre-emptive war.

        You can't claim your desire to increase sanctions even after Iran has come to the negotiating table while at the same time advocating pre-emptive war with Iran isn't exactly that.

        At this point the discussion is degenerating into

        Yes it is
        No it's not

        And frankly I think you are being a little devious and contradictory by advocating more sanctions AND war.

        And then saying more sanctions don't lead to war.

      •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Karen from Maui

        Depriving a nation of its livelihood is not an act of war.

        Especially when done because we happen to be the biggest dick on the block.

        And we've been a dick to them ever since our puppet was kicked out.

        And its all their fault and they should just do everything we say because DC think tanks say so.

        And they should trust us. We have their best interest at heart.


        Glad I don't live in DC.

  •  All of the Above (0+ / 0-)

    Why not pander to all the bad people at once, right?

  •  Summary of discussion between AIPAC guy and me (0+ / 0-)

    AIPAC guy:  You can't trust Iran so put more sanctions on them to insure they negotiate in good faith.

    Me: Sanctions have brought them to the table already. Why would these sanctions allow them to negotiate in bad faith but MORE sanctions would force them to negotiate in good faith.  Seems like the bad faith would be on the U.S. side!

    AIPAC guy: Iran is anti-Christian, anti-semetic and homophobic, so we should attack them.

    Me: In that case, let's attack Utah

    AIPAC guy: More sanctions won't lead to war.

    Me: More sanctions will derail negotiations and make it easier for you guys to argue for war.

    APIPAC guy: What do you have against Israel?

    Me: AIPAC ≠ Israel

    He NEVER gives up!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site