Yesterday I pointed out that the Iran deal vote is designed in such a way that President Obama only needs 34 Democrat Senators OR 146 House Democrats save the Iran deal (at least for the duration of his term).
I also noted that via the Fishbait Miller standard Democrats are doing their best to figure out who can be spared to vote “No” if it is necessary.
But there is one other wild card that might drive more democrats to support the President, and that a fellow named Bernie Sanders:
“Look, I’m not going to tell you that this is a perfect agreement … It’s so easy to be critical of an agreement which is not perfect,” he said during an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“But the United States has to negotiate with other countries. We have to negotiate with Iran. And the alternative of not reaching an agreement, you know what it is? It’s war. Do we really want another war, a war with Iran? An asymmetrical warfare that will take place all over this world, threaten American troops?”
While the Jewish Sanders qualified support will help the Whitehouse keep Democrats behind him, the fact that he is running is much more significant.
Sanders presidential race means that a large turnout of the farthest left of the democrat base, this is the group most likely to support Barack Obama’s Iran deal.
For a guy like Chuck Schumer that’s not a problem but what about a democrat in a normally safe seat?
In a year when progressive turnout is expected to be high a Democrat who opposes the president might have to worry about a primary challenge at a time when the electorate would be at its farthest left.
That, more than anything else is Obama’s ace in the hole.
Back before the passage of Obamacare in the days when the Democrats had filibuster-proof majorities in the senate and an overwhelming majority in the House, there was a huge question I had this to say on some comments by James Carville on Obamacare:
Unless he knows about a special election that the rest of us don’t there are still only 40 Republican votes in the senate and the house has a very large democratic majority. Republicans can’t kill any bill the democrats are willing to pass.
What Mr. Carville wants is cover for his members and the ability to share the blame. If his people really believed this was the right thing to do they would do it. They want cover for this lemon, the Republicans won’t give it so he is trying to make lemonade.
Of course Ted Kennedy’s death and Scott Brown’s election changed that slightly but the point remained the same: (emphasis in original)
The democrats KNOW both health care bills are Lemons that serve their own special interests groups over the people they claim to be helping. If they thought for one moment that these bills were good or the country and/or a political winner, they would have passed them and eagerly took the full credit.
So they played the Fishbait Miller game and with some help from Bart Stupak gave some Democrats cover
The Speaker always carries a number of votes in her pocket,” he said, meaning that some members who voted ‘no’ would have voted ‘yes’ if needed.
“I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could vote no.”
As I look at the Iran deal I see the exact same thing.
If the Iran deal was any good, Democrats would be rushing to support in drove and republican in swing districts facing a tough re-election fight in 2016 would be hedging their bets.
But it’s not a good deal, it’s a horrible deal and that’s why we have a situation where the while house needs to get EITHER 34 senate democrats OR 146 house democrats.
Think about that, there are 232 Democrats in the congress (188 House &44 Senate) yet the White House can have as few as 15% of the total democrat caucus and STILL save the Iran Nuke deal.
“After deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval,” Schumer said in a statement weeks before he will cast a vote.
This tweet asks the question that matters:
Schumer says he’ll vote no on Obama Iran deal. But will he also work to get others to oppose it? And will he also vote to override a veto?
I have seen no evidence that Chuck Schumer is making any effort to win over the 9 more Democrat senators that will be necessary to override a Presidential veto and absent such evidence I have to agree with Mike Parker:
@instapundit@dianamee Only after he was assured Obama doesn’t need his vote. He is a true political hack.
Bottom line, this deal is lousy and we are watching another Democrat Fishbait Miller moment and tough talk notwithstanding rest assured that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to make sure they give any democrat that needs it cover to vote no on this lemon.
And when the nuclear arms race takes place, they’ll be able to shake their head in public and point to their vote, with a little effort they might even be able to convince themselves that they really meant it.
Normally I wouldn’t put it this way but right, with a car falling apart, a floor that needs to be torn up and some big debts I’m really in a bind and I’d really appreciate it if you can give me a hand getting out of it.
My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.
That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta) If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.
Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.
Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.
With The Iran Deal Munich II now in place (and with Democrats highly invested in continuing to prop up the Obama myth unlikely to stop it) the nations of the middle east have arrived at Decision time.
They pretty much have four choices
1. Form an alliance with Iran:
Iran is about to become the regional power in the area one is either going to have choose sides. If they think that nobody is going to be willing or able to stop Iran then it may be time to made an accommodation while there is still some leverage to be had.
After the anti-jew rhetoric that comes with such an alliance will likely play well with your population and by hanging with Iran this makes you automatically anti-ISIS which might get you some love from the west.
2. Form an alliance with Israel:
Other than ISIS the one nation that will fight to the death against Iran is Israel, they are also likely the one nation that can and will resist them at all costs.
Plus while Iran is getting closer & closer to the bomb Israel not only already has it but has, unlike Iran, demonstrated a willingness to not use said bomb to destroy their enemies even though they use terror against them.
While such an accommodation might not be publicly popular given that the alternatives are being ruled by Iran or destroyed by ISIS this choice has a lot of appeal if you want a modern civilized technological powerhouse with you. (Besides Israel has powerful friends in high places & I don’t mean the US).
3. Build or Buy a Bomb:
OK so you don’t want to be vassals of Iran and your hatred of Jews is so great that you simply can’t bring yourself to ally with Israel (or you’re afraid your people will revolt or join ISIS if you do). The third choice is to get a bomb of your own.
Odds are you don’t have the time to build a bomb but the sooner you start the sooner you finish and if you are awash with oil money you can buy the technology, the expertise and maybe even the whole kit and caboodle.
Of course this option has risks. If the Iranians finish their bomb first they might decide to strike before you can get your deterrent in place, or if your anti-Israel rhetoric is strong enough Israel might decide to preempt you first.
4. Hope Things Change in America after election 2016:
This isn’t as easy as it sounds, not only do you need a GOP victory which is at best a 50-50 shot but you need a GOP president willing to rally the allies who will have a year of making money off of Iran in a tough economy.
And of course there is no guarantee that your country will still be in one piece by the time.
and if you are one of the few in the middle east that thinks this deal will actually work, sitting around doing nothing will make perfect sense in the hope that neither side will find you worth worry about.
Who knows if your position is high enough in government perhaps you’ll be able to steal enough to let you and your family retire to the west in style before trouble heads your way.
I suspect that we will see the nations of the middle east move pretty quickly along these lines because unlike the global warming crowd that has learned to make predictions that can’t be disproved in their lifetime I suspect we’re going to see the fruits of this deal before the regeneration of the next doctor take place, maybe even before Peter Capaldi’s days in the role are done.
As a nation we have long depended on early warning systems like RADAR to tell us of incoming threats. This started during World War 2 when advances the first RADAR systems in the world warned Great Britain of incoming German airplanes allowing the British to put their defensive aircraft exactly where they were needed.
This has extended into defenses against missiles. We have all watched the videos from the Gulf when US PATRIOT Missiles knocked down incoming Scud missiles to defend our troops. These are RADAR guided missiles.
We are fantastic at finding things that fly at us. One might even venture to say we are the best in the world at this.
During World War 2, the only time nuclear weapons have been used in hostile activity, these weapons were delivered using bombers. Japan was hit twice by the United States with fission weapons which brought the War to a close much sooner than otherwise thought possible. We can argue the necessity but that is the history.
If a nuclear device was put into a bomber or thrown on a missile and launched at the United States we would detect it. Of that, there is very little doubt. We might not find it fast enough to stop it depending upon the launch site but we could probably do something.
That isn’t the fear.
The fear is what happens in the modern world.
Nuclear weapons are not the massive things they once were. The World War 2 era devices were massive, hard to move and just simple put big, ugly devices. It is 70 years later and technology has miniaturized everything during the years between here and there.
Counterterrorism experts have long worried that maritime transportation, particularly the traffic in TEUs, could provide a difficult to detect avenue for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction to U.S. shores. That is why since 2007 there has been a law on the books that the Department of Homeland Security pursue the goal of screening 100 percent of all cargo bound for the United States by the end of 2011. While some progress has been made towards this goal, the reality is that cargo screening today is largely a paper exercise, relying on shippers to provide manifests of what is contained in cargo bins or TEUs. Less than one percent of cargo containers, whether traveling by air or on ships, are actively inspected or scanned with a detector. Sending a bomb in the cargo hold of a commercial airliner or cargo ship might seem to the terrorists like a pretty sure thing.
A weapon of mass destruction or radiological device going off in a U.S. port would cause incalculable physical and economic damage and could result in the loss of tens of thousands of lives. The impact on international trade could be even worse. In the wake of 9/11 the U.S. government initially grounded all flights over the United States. It took about a year to reopen Reagan National Airport. After the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, all U.S. deep water drilling was halted for two years while safety measures were reviewed and upgraded. In the absence of 100 percent cargo screening, even a failed attempt to smuggle a device into the U.S. could bring international trade to a complete halt. Closing U.S. ports for weeks, much less months or years would cripple our economy.
That is correct. One percent of cargo coming into the nation is scanned for these devices and could easily contain one or more on any given day.
If someone with one wanted to get it here, it would no longer take a large effort to do so.
This is why a nuclear Iran, or nuclear terrorism (I’m not certain there is a difference) must not be allowed to happen ever. Not ten years away…ever. If we can’t do better than one percent, and we depend on the shipper to help us, we don’t understand our enemy.
Timothy Imholt PhD
As a short Post Script, I wrote a book about what I think the world would look like should Iran get these devices and do what they have stated they desire to do with them. This book is called The Last World War: Volume 1 Trial By Fission, which is available on Amazon in print and on Kindle.
Duncan:It doesn’t have to be public as long as everybody knows
Yes Minister: Party Games 1984
This weekend everyone was all a twitter about the Saudi’s intention to arm themselves with Nuclear Weapons to answer the Obama enabled mullahs of Iran.
But unlike the Iranians who decided to develop their own program the Saudi’s being glutted with the wealth that comes from having only to poke a hole in the ground to find it are looking at a quicker route:
Saudi Arabia has invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects, and believes it could obtain atomic bombs at will, a variety of sources have told BBC Newsnight.
While the kingdom’s quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran’s atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.
Now given the effect of Obama’s retreat in Iraq, and the results of the Ukrainian surrender of their nukes the Saudi move is a prudent one but there is an obvious question worth asking.
Since 1947 the arab nations of the area have insisted the Israel is the greatest danger to peace, an aggressor out to enslave arabs and until 1973 fought multiple wars in an attempt to destroy them.
While Israel did not publicly admit it, the entire Arab world suspected that Israel had the bomb , and the first unofficial confirmation came out in 1986 meaning that they have known Israel had nukes for at least 30 years.
Yet the knowledge that the scourge of humanity, the country that the UN condemns more than any other. The state that Arabs the world over consider the ultimate aggressor at knowledge did not compel the Saudi’s to either develop or buy the bomb.
There is lot of talk that comes from our friends on the left, about the threat of Israel but the only crisis that Israel nukes brought to the middle east was arresting of the potential of Arabs to slaughter Jews en masse. And Arab nations for all their talk acted accordingly
Compare this to how Arab nations are reacting to a potential nuclear bomb.
Glenn Reynolds often says this Global Warming: “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.”
The Saudis/Arabs never acted like Israel with a bomb for 30+ years was a crisis because for all their talk they knew it was not.
Now with the Iranians about to get the bomb the Saudi’s are acting like it’s a crisis.
The first in an occasional series of simple comparisons between the Bush and Obama Years.
Both George Bush & Barack Obama Claimed their goal was to deny a Nuclear Weapon to Iraq. Let’s see how they compare
By the end of the Bush Years Iran not only had sanctions but had US Ground forces to their west (Iraq), US Ground forces to the East (Afghanistan) of Iran and the US navy to the south.
With twenty months to the election of his replacement Barack Obama has withdrawn troops from the west of Iran, is in the process of withdrawing US troops from the east of Iran, has loosed sanctions and is moving forward with a deal for removing those sanctions that his own state department and Secretary of State publicly declares is “Not legally Binding”.
Given these facts which of these men would you logically conclude has the goal to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?
The failed presidential bid of Richard Russell in 1952 convinced both Johnson and Russell his patron that no Southerner could be elected president until they were “made clean” on Civil Rights. Russell was clearly the most qualified and most respected Democratic Candidate in 1952 but in state after state he was told privately by party members that they could not support a southerner (Russell for all his virtues and he had many, was an arch segregationist who opposed military integration and whose opinion of the races were frankly startling). Russell dreamed of seeing a southerner in the White house and was determined to give Lyndon the chance he did not have.
Lyndon Johnson ambitions had always been toward the white house. Once he was convinced that support for civil rights was a sine-qua-non for him to become a credible candidate for the White House Lyndon Johnson was determined to be not only the supporter of a Civil Rights bill in the Senate but he would be the pilot steering such a bill through every shoal so that the final bill came to port it would be flying the flag of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Barack Obama’s Presidency has been a story of failure. His signature accomplishment Obamacare while saved from destruction by Justice RobertsOld Yellow Stain has been the cause of the defeat of many Democrats & the largest GOP house majority in nearly a century. Meanwhile under his care US interests in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine & Russia are falling apart.
All that matters is a deal and if Iran violates it and gets that bomb, as long it happens after he’s out office, oh well.
Meanwhile Tom Cotton has been very clear about his own goals:
“But you’re trying to kill this deal, aren’t you?” Karl asked.
“I’m trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon – today, 10 years from now, 20 years from now,” Cotton responded.
“But you’ve been quite clear that your goal in all of this is to kill this deal, because you do not think that President Barack Obama’s negotiating a good deal,” Karl pressed.
“My only goal – for years now – is to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Cotton added.
Cotton’s statement concerning his letter, reminds me of another letter written by a US pol concerning a war:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
Tom Cotton wants to stop Iran from getting a nuke, he’s not been shy about it. If he can do it by attacking an Obama deal with Iran he will, if he can do by embracing an Obama deal with Iran he will and I suspect if he can do it by embracing parts of an Obama deal with Iran while opposing other parts he would do that too.
It is almost a week since the Tom Cotton’s open letter to Iran signed by 47 republicans was published yet judging by the Washington Post piece on Friday
The spirit of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s opinion in the 1857 Dred Scott decision — that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” — has descended upon the administration of President Obama.
When the speaker of the House of Representatives can deliver the public affront of inviting a foreign leader to Congress to denounce the president’s most important diplomatic initiative, and when 47 Republican senators can send an open letter advising a foreign adversary that the president’s designated negotiators can’t deliver on the international deal under consideration, it’s fair to say that Republicans are telling the world that this president has no authority that they feel “bound to respect.”
Well, Senator, are you planning to contact any other of our adversaries around the country, for example, do you plan to check with the North Koreans to make sure that they know that any deal has to be approved by the Congress?
illustrates the left shows no sign of ending their outrage at Senator Cotton & company.
Now if you actually read the letter you will find that it contains information that anyone with a basic knowledge of the US Constitution knows is absolutely correct.
As U.S. and Iranian diplomats inched toward progress on Tehran’s nuclear program last week, Saudi Arabia quietly signed its own nuclear-cooperation agreement with South Korea.
That agreement, along with recent comments from Saudi officials and royals, is raising concerns on Capitol Hill and among U.S. allies that a deal with Iran, rather than stanching the spread of nuclear technologies, risks fueling it.
Tom Cotton told the truth and it exposed the administration’s Iran deal for what it is spoiling the media narrative. That’s bad enough but he’s also confronted his attackers head on…
Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.
And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.
I suspect that the proper word is not “despite” but more like “because” as the ability to pretend this deal will prevent them from a nuke is no longer tennable.
Does that mean the left will have to change its hashtag to #67 traitors?
I had been in assuming that this was going to be some cheap, catchpenny display. This was, as I said on Twitter in the moments following the address, one of the most powerful speeches which I have seen delivered in that chamber in the modern era. Netanyahu was the essence of many attributes so lacking in American politics today.
Another was how it exposed what has been true for a while, that the Democrats have thrown Israel under the bus (but dare not say it in public for fear of alienating donor $
“She also kept commenting to her seat-mate, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), using forceful gestures,” noted The Hill. She’s been in Congress for nearly 30 years and served her first two years as Speaker alongside the left’s bete noire, the Bushitler, somehow without resorting to rage-driven “forceful gestures” during a major speech.
But the real problem that the left has is indicated by the missing word from the critics of his speech.
The problem the left is Bibi was telling the truth in a very public forum, and the truth told before people who have been selling lies for more than half a decade is a powerful thing.
There is nothing that undermines cowards or liars more than truth.
Furthermore the facts on the ground are an issue because, as Roger Simon put it, the US didn’t have the assets deployed to intercept such an attack
The U.S. simply does not have the facilities in place anymore, and if it were to get them, the “spin up” would be obvious to almost everyone, making it ineffective. Moreover, there have been many reports that Saudi Arabia has agreed to let the Israelis fly over their territory if they attacked Iran, making U.S. interception all the more difficult.
Still further, the source noted, it would be unclear if U.S. air force personnel would obey an order to attack their Israeli colleagues — some of whom they may have trained with. On top of that, the Israelis are often more experienced fighter pilots. The ones chosen to attack Iranian nuclear installations would undoubtedly be an elite team.
Whatever the intent of the story or the facts of the matter there’s one thing that going to be an issue for this administration.
Can any person with even a vague acquaintance with this administration’s attitude toward both Iran & Israel honestly say that when they saw the Headline at Drudge (before clicking through to the story) that they found it the slightest bit unbelievable?
Frankly because the facts are weak on this I suspect the left will come out swinging here. It sure beats defending the actual record of this admin vis-a-vis Israel & Iran.