Fear of Lobby Keeps Dems From Praising Obama's Iran Deal

[Whisp]

-- and the Best Book on Israel in 40 Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/fear-of-lobby-keeps-dems-_b_4404408.html

Above all, the agreement (if Congress allows it to be implemented) puts a brake on Iranian nuclear development, something that no other strategy the U.S. has tried has accomplished. (Sanctions? Before sanctions were imposed Iran had 160 centrifuges for advanced uranium enrichment; now it has 19,000).

But lay all that aside for a moment. And think only of the politics. At a time when President Obama's popularity may be at its lowest point since his 2009 inauguration (due largely to the problems with the Obamacare rollout) the administration has something truly magnificent to show off as a second term accomplishment: the Iran breakthrough. With the off year election looming, Democrats can go into the campaign with something tangible to show, something on a par with Nixon's opening to China. Congressional majorities are built on successes like the one in Geneva.

Only it is not turning out that way because most Democrats are too worried about offending donors to even discuss Iran, let alone take credit for the agreement. The ones who are talking about it are condemning it in terms that sound Ted Cruzesque. (See top Democrats Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez for two, of many, examples). And it's not just Democrats from the northeast who are hammering on Obama. Congressional campaigns now fundraise nationally, meaning that senators from South Dakota and Oregon respond to events in the Middle East as if they represented the New York metropolitan area. Pretty much all Congressional Democrats are running scared...of a Democratic president's historic success.
---
Right or wrong, nothing else he does overseas will be remembered or noted with as much attention. Normally, a party's leadership will stand behind a president in his moment of diplomatic achievement. Not this time.

===
fuckers.

[MrTriumph]

1. "something on a par with Nixon's opening to China"- really?

The differences are stark between China in the 70s and Iran.

That aside, you make a sound point if you believe, as you do, that an administration known for its many capitulations and bad deals actually made a good one.

[Whisp]

2. Thank you for partcipating.

Your prize is waiting for you at the door.

[geek tragedy]

18. Speaking of Ted Cruzesque commentary. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

28. They (differences) sure are...

Iran does not look like a source of cheap labor, which was the only thing Nixon's China visit was about.

[Cha]

3. Thanks for the report, Whisp.. poor scared little dems.

[Whisp]

6. some days things look so dismal

and possibility for change so slim...

corruption and favours and games are so deep.

We will need a lot more Obamas to set things on a better path than the warmongerers need and want.

Everything seems to be about egos and pride, wallets, influence and snobbery.

*sigh

[Cha]

16. You need an uplifter, Whisp..

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/12/07/rise-and-shine-690/

[Whisp]

22. Thanks Cha, that worked. Made me smile.

All kinds of good things happening too. All kinds of great and wonderful people out there doing great and wonderful things to benefit us all.



thankee. you saved me from the abyss. I was really getting caught. heh.

[Cha]

25. You're welcome

[calimary]

26. Agreed! Perked me up a little, too! Thank you, Cha!!!

You're the best!

[Aerows]

4. Too many of them have military contractors in their states

or produce oil and are terrified of a lack of war and cheap oil.

Who are they representing? It isn't the We the People, that is for damn sure.

[Whisp]

7. War and thievery has been the family business for too long.

Habits are hard to break.

[Aerows]

20. Sadly, you are too right

[Enthusiast]

32. PLUS ONE! nt

[okaawhatever]

5. It wouldn't surprise me if AIPAC took the opportunity to try and unseat someone in Congress who

vocally supports the deal. For clout if nothing else. State elections are a lot cheaper than a National election and it might prove a way for them to flex their muscles. One of the questions would be whether J Street could round up enough support to counter AIPAC. I think AIPAC has way too much influence and i'd like to see a more powerful J Street lobby to balance them out.

[annabanana]

12. +1 . . .. . n/t

[karynnj]

17. I suspect that J Street WOULD counter AIPAC - and among Jewish voters

would get more Jewish votes. Oddly it may be Christian evangelicals that are more supportive of Likud.

[Aerows]

23. Christian Evangelicals

are much more aligned with the Likud, but for different reasons. Evangelical Christians are waiting for the Holy War that signals the coming of Christ with bated breath and will do anything to cause it; the Likud just wants more resources to expand their state as far as they possibly can and believe it is their right to do so if they have to throw other folks off of that land as a result of that goal.

That pretty much serves the purposes of both - Holy War, and the opportunity for land grabs.

[badtoworse]

8. It's way too early to be calling the Iran deal a success.

Personally, I don't trust Iran's leadership one bit. I'd need at least a few years to be convinced they're not cheating.

[Whisp]

10. Let's try to remember why Iran does not trust the U.S.

I would rethink who the real cheaters are.

[karynnj]

19. That's why there will be daily inspections

That alone is better than where we are now. What do you think is a better solution - even for a few years.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. you think? - the power that EVERYONE KNOWS is there - but everyone must pretend doesn't even exist

[Whisp]

11. Invisible powers are difficult or next to impossible to fight.

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. it is not that the Israeli Lobby is invisible - They are actually extremely upfront, and transparent

- probably the most upfront, visible, attention seeking and transparent lobby in history. It is anything but a secret conspiracy. It's just that fear of being accused or labeled has created a political culture where it is like an elephant walking the floor with everyone - or everyone respectable, anyway - agreeing to pretend that they don't see it - especially those who were riding on its back and feeding it hay and water. "What? There is no elephant here! What are you talking about?"

[adavid]

14. I find this...

absolutely amazing and discussting at the same time.
Think about this;
The American people overwhelmingly support (the polling data) the deal.
Yet, the Congress critters are more worried by what a foreign country and her lobby (AIPAC) thinks, than the constituency that should only matter to them, the American people.

Remember when Netanyahoo gave a speech on the House floor a few years ago and had a record number of standing ovations by BOTH SIDES OF THE ISLE?



Crazy stuff.

[karynnj]

15. Secretary Kerry made a great case for this interim agreement at the Saban Forum

He just finished his speech. Earlier in the day, Obama had a Q&A there. Both will be on their website. http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/12/06-saban-forum-2013-power-shifts-us-israeli-relations-dynamic-middle-east

Both did incredible jobs speaking DIRECTLY to the Jewish lobby. Kerry has also spent a huge amount of time speaking to Netanyahu. Hopefully, this will cause many in the lobby to realize that this really is a major break through - and it will be game changing if the final deal is reached.

JStreet put this earlier Kerry quote on their web site:


I agree with you that this really should be a real accomplishment for the President and something that would enhance his position as the China move did for Nixon. Personally, I phonebanked and canvassed for Menendez (partly because of Kerry's email for him!) - and think he is acting in a very stupid manner on this.

[Skip Intro]

21. What is the deal, exactly?

I've heard it praised, I've heard it cursed, but I've seen very little reporting on what exactly the deal stipulates, even very little discussion of the specifics here.

What do we get, what do we give, what does Iran get, what does Iran give?

Can anyone fill me in with a simple and straightforward answer?

[Whisp]

24. Here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/11/30/the-iranian-nuclear-deal-is-a-good-one/

Four key provisions were obtained in this deal:

1) no enrichment of U above 5% U-235, and all highly-enriched materials, some as high as 20% U-235, must be blended down to less than 5% or altered to a form not usable for weapons.

2) no additional centrifuges are to be installed or produced, and three-fourths of the centrifuges at Fordow and half of the centrifuges at Natanz will be inoperable,

3) stop all work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak, provide design details on the reactor (which could be used to produce Pu for the other type of atomic weapon) and do not develop the reprocessing facilities needed to separate Pu from used fuel,

4) full access by IAEA inspectors to all nuclear facilities, including daily visitation to Natanz and Fordow, and continuous camera surveillance of key sites.

Despite all the rhetoric of horror and claims that this deal is a mistake, this deal is just what we all hoped for as the first step to resolving the Iranian nuclear weapons issue, the structure of which we’ve been proposing for years. It is the first step to bringing Iran into the world’s nuclear community as a partner instead of an adversary, making Iran a compliant signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. While this may make some of its neighbors nervous, there is no real alternative that does not involve lots of destruction and death.

[billhicks76]

27. Pathetic

Will the real Democrats please stand up.

[lexington filly]

29. Need help with my history. When has

any American government been able through threats, sanctions or war been able to prevent any determined country from developing their own nuclear weapon since? My knowledge only extends to instances of America committing to our protecting a country against others with nukes which dissuaded others. We couldn't stop India, North Korea, Pakistan, USSR, China . . . My understanding is that we aided Israel with developing nuclear weapons. If we hadn't done that, wonder if Iran would even be straining at the bit to develop their own.

Appreciate any input.

[Jamaal510]

30. I almost feel sorry for PBO.

From Day 1, it seemed like he never really had anyone in D.C. on his side; the GOP has constantly opposed whatever he wanted and supported, while support from his fellow Democrats has been rather lukewarm, even on things like this and Obamacare that are really beneficial for the country. This is another reason why I never want to run for President, because so many people that a President works with turn out to be snakes, and then the general public doesn't know who to blame for things not getting done.

[Dustlawyer]

31. We overthrew their government and installed a vicious dictator who ruled for decades and killed

thousands, if not millions of his own people. If for that reason alone we should try diplomacy 1st, not shoot 1st! That are the choices here if we don't want them to have "the bomb!" Tehran was a cosmopolitan city before the Shah. It's people long for that again, so if we can make this work, the people there will eventually do the rest to to remain connected in trade to the rest of the world. If not, we can try the hard way.