2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

GOP wants to deny Obama any successes of any kind and Dems cowed by AIPAC and Bibi all too eager to oblige, even though neither faction has any clear demands about what else they could possibly want out of a deal with Iran. all they want is no deal.

obama kinda opened a precedent for congressional intervention in foreign affairs when he sent the syria plan to them for approval.

that's inaccurate. they have very clear demands. for one, they want iranian recognition of israel. now maybe it's so unlikely that it's not worth including, but it's dishonest to say that they haven't said what demands they want. in fact bibi released a whole list of things he wants from a deal.

now maybe it's so unlikely that it's not worth including

*ding ding ding*

this is the kind of demand that is made to ensure that no deal will happen, and it doesn't even have anything to do with *why* the sanctions are in place in the first place. Sanctions weren't instituted because Iran wouldn't recognize Israel, they were instituted because of Iran's nuclear program.

Also Bibi is not a member of congress (much as he might like to be), I haven't read of any congressional members signing off on his list of demands.

sure maybe but obama said himself in 2008:

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

so ya know. let's not pretend like anyone here is a particularly honest dude. not the iranians, not the israelis, not the congress and not obama.

and not Speaker Netanyahu

If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community.

this was a speech, not legislation and you will note there is no straight 1:1 correlation between any of those things - it's a very general statement

i mean ok all politicians lie to get elected, but considering that he legit campaigned on sanctions only being lifted w/ Iranian secession of terror support, and threats to Israel, it's pretty disingenuous to come back today and be like 'no, that requirement is totally crazy.'

legit campaigned on sanctions only being lifted w/ Iranian secession of terror support, and threats to Israel

this is a nice misreading, but it's wrong

'sanctions have nothing to do w/ terror support + threats!' 'they would never accept it anyway!' 'you just want to kill the deal!' < this is all WH propaganda to try and sell the current deal

also yes lol campaign speeches

I hear Gitmo is closed oh wai

xp

lol tell me how it's wrong:

Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

how does that not mean - incentives for abandoning nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, ratcheting up pressure for refusing those things?

But even if Obama had made this recognition a cornerstone of the Security Council agreement this Congress would still have found another footnote to argue over. Frankly, given Obama's foreign policy malfeasance I wouldn't trust him either but with the other SC members it's a case of the Legion of Doom keeping a close eye on each other as they guard their self-interest.

like be honest - if the game has changed, or obama is desperate for a deal, or he just said shit in 2008 to get elected, ok whatever. but don't tell me - no, actually the plain meaning of the words he spoke are false and ppl who still hold that position in 2015 are disingenuous.

you have Congressmen agreeing with John Bolton that we should drop missiles on Iran. Why should we take them on good faith?

i assume that if congress wants a veto-proof majority for this bill they're going to need to convince some people to sign on who don't agree w/ john bolton

Majority Leader Bolton

and if a veto-proof majority of congress supports the bill, and it's legal within the framework of the constitution, then what's the complaint exactly? we're upset that the executive branch doesn't have more unilateral legal power than it already does?

or is this just more creepy liberalism. democracy for me but not for thee?

sanctions have nothing to do w/ terror support + threats!

terror support and threats are not mentioned/addressed in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010

how does that not mean - incentives for abandoning nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, ratcheting up pressure for refusing those things?

I know you know what "including" and "and" mean. that statement does not specify any direct relationship between any of the items listed - it's vague as befits a campaign statement. (and frankly I don't think it's worth parsing the semantics of campaign speeches when it comes down to how policy actually gets done)

xxp

i think yr doing some serious gymnastics to explain how obama didn't mean what he obviously meant. but whatever, obv you have a stake in defending him on this issue.

"including" doesn't even come into the part of the sentence you think you're parsing. " If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives... If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure." The including is the kind of meaningful incentives there will be. He wasn't saying that if the things they agree to include abandoning etc. this is basic reading skills you're deliberately fucking up on to make a silly argument.

unless we're just done w/ this whole separation of power thing and the executive is going to be in charge of all decisions from now on

― Mordy, Tuesday, April 14, 2015 5:44 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

congress has gleefully been ceding authority to the executive for a couple decades now

using "including" to preface the "meaningful incentives" listed oh why do I bother

"Instead, we will present a clear choice:" You can choose between the following two things.
"If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives." If you do these three things, A, B, and (not 'or') C, there will be meaningful incentives.
"— including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community." The kinds of meaningful incentives include lifting sanctions, political and economic integration.
"If you refuse," to do the things we listed above
"we will ratchet up the pressure."

i don't know why you bother tbh. just say that obama was lying to get elected and he never really believed it. stop w/ the innovative syntactical interpretation.

I read that statement to indicate "you do some of these things = you get some of these things" but it doesn't get any more specific than that i.e. if Iran does a subset of the former the implication is they'll get a subset of the latter, it's not an all-or-nothing statement.

anyway I'm done with this let's move on...

btw, ratchetting up the sanctions in lieu of a deal that contains these provisions is also bibi's position. bibi today + obama in 2008 agree!

fwiw I don't think he was lying there really (altho everyone lies to get elected) as much as he was laying out a general strategy and not something that could reasonably be interpreted as a specific, firm commitment

xxp

But if someone in 2015 agrees with 2008 Obama are they dishonest liars trying to jettison any deal? Whose position has evolved here exactly

I didn't call anyone a dishonest liar

GOP is v clear that they don't want a deal

(altho yeah I wouldn't hesitate to call Bibi a dishonest liar, cf his pre-re-election comments)

In the end it's probably just a sideshow. If State can't even get agreement from Iran for the framework deal provisions that they supposedly had a breakthrough on what's the chance a final deal will happen?

They don't even have a framework deal.

More likely Iran installs the Russian missile defense system and then tells O to fuck off

we are the dishonest truthtellers! goodnight bowling green!

If anything I feel like congress is giving political cover to Obama for when shit falls through bc then he can blame them

Obama saying he will sign this bipartisan deal = yeah you are probably right

blech

although I kinda doubt that was Corker's intention lol

But if they get a deal and Dems had backed O, this is what he had wanted constitutionally, without needing Congressional approval

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/10/executive-agreements-and-senate-disagreements/

treaties serve as a tiny fraction of international agreements. From the vantage of the White House, this makes perfect sense: Achieving a 2/3 vote authorizing ratification has become increasingly implausible no matter what treaty is under discussion. ....

more than 18,500 executive agreements have been entered into since 1789: more than 17,000 of them from 1939 on. By the mid-1920s, the number of executive agreements had started to outpace the number of treaties, a trend vastly accelerated by World War II; between 1953 and 1972, more than three-quarters of significant military commitments abroad were conducted via executive agreement rather than by treaty. These included, in the mid-1960s, major commitments to the defense of such nations as Ethiopia, Thailand and Spain. In the last case, the U.S. pledged to protect Spain (which did not join NATO until 1982) against attack in exchange for the right to use Spanish soil for military bases.

iran agreeing to reduce threats to israel isn't the same thing as agreeing to recognize israel

what is the 'reduced threat to israel' going to mean anyway, beyond curtailing the nuclear program itself? like, that's what the whole thing is for. reducing support for assad? or hamas? why not demand they bring the shah back while we're at it.

if you want to get a deal in place it's probably better to not mention israel at all. the iranians won't even admit the program is for war anyway, right? or if they want nuclear power, it's purely defensive? demanding they say 'israel is a legitimate state' is not only a few bridges too far it seems kind of pointless.

shakey otm, an attempt to include language of recognition is an attempt to torpedo the whole thing.

frankly i don't see why hawks aren't ok with putting some dumb deal in place; given what they think of the iranians, it won't take long before they are found breaking the deal and then presto, we have a more legit casus belli (because they are fanatics and paranoids is why not)

oh my god

http://hillaryis44.com/

this blog is still going

and it is REALLY going

motherfucker is just flying right now

a quote from a Hillary hating article from a Hillary Hater at the Hillary Hating All White Republic:

so much hatin

Inspired by Clinton’s “pragmatic centrism”

lol I can't think of many things less inspiring than the phrase "pragmatic centrism"

dogmatic censusism

"George W. Bush"

"18-1/2 months more of this shit"

don't expect an improvement in month 19