With the Barbara Mikulski Vote: What other OPTIONS does the GOP have now to Kill the Iran Deal?

SPC Andrew Griffin — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:15:11 -0400

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Sep 2 at 2015 11:18 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:18:40 -0400

Oh what a tangled web we weave!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 2 at 2015 11:39 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:39:03 -0400

So we are supposed to accept the fact that this President can ignore the Constitution at will and instead of garnering a 2/3 majority vote to approve his "treaty", he has but to secure a sufficient majority so he can veto legislation telling him to stop side-stepping the Constitution and go ahead and make "executive agreements" (that have the full force and effect of treaties). Does anyone else see the insanity of this? Does anyone have the fortitude (see how I restrained myself despite the fact that I am shaking at the keyboard?) to put a stop to this lawlessness? Pick up the phone and call your elected officials before you have to pick up guns...

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Sep 2 at 2015 11:41 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:41:30 -0400

Right now they're hoping they don't lose 7 more Democrats so they can pass a cloture vote.

Not out of the realm of possibilities...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2015 11:42 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:42:43 -0400

I'm going to throw out an unpopular opinion:

Although I don't agree with the deal, I think we cannot just "cancel" it without looking completely incompetent to our enemies and allies. Regardless of whether it was a good decision, we now need to modify it and uphold it. Bipartisan support of making the best of what was created and an open dialogue we now have with Iran is the only way forward. Fighting it will only cause more issues in our already very divided political arena.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Sep 2 at 2015 11:51 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 11:51:09 -0400

I guess they could try yet another shut-down.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2015 12:14 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:14:33 -0400

This shouldn't be about party, the vote should be about national security. Iranian leaders are still calling us the "great satan" and they still want us all dead.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Sep 2 at 2015 12:45 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:45:09 -0400

Despite their grandstanding for the cameras, it is clear that the GOP leaders do not want to kill the Iran Nuclear Deal. A few individual Republicans would like to stop it and a much larger number of Republicans would like to be able to tell their constituents "I did my best to stop it". This is just normal politics in America the two parties claim to have different positions, while in the end the "Progressives", in both parties, get what they want.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Sep 2 at 2015 1:06 PM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:06:55 -0400

SPC Andrew Griffin - Since the "Iran Deal" is not American domestic law, "Congress" has only two options for ways to "kill" it:

[1] impose trade sanctions on the rest of the world which absolutely prohibit any trading with any country other than the United States of America (the seizure of "foreign assets" will keep the country going for a few days), or

[2] declare war on the rest of the world and conquer it.

Neither Option [1] nor Option [2] are exactly what one could call "practical".

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Sep 2 at 2015 1:16 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 13:16:17 -0400

SPC Andrew Griffin This is a bad situation. This deal should have been set up behind closed doors with the foreign relations committee, speaker of the house, Vice President, and President. A tentative agreement or at the very least an outline of what would be acceptable to all. That way when the negotiations began in earnest, Mr. Kerry would have had a ground work for what he could do without stirring up a political shit storm. The problem is that Washington has become so dysfunctional that if they had met to set terms, this deal would never have gotten done.

As to whether or not it is a good deal for all parties, only time will tell.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Sep 2 at 2015 2:20 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 14:20:19 -0400

Can we start removing people from political office? That sounds like a good solution, most of the current politicians are only supporting their own agendas and not sufficiently representing the people.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 4 at 2015 1:23 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:23:29 -0400

Lessons from PM Chamberlain of England. Capitulation always works.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 26 at 2016 11:16 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 11:16:21 -0400

Has anyone actually seen the signed document that is called the "deal"?

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Jun 26 at 2016 2:08 PM

SFC Charles Temm — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:08:34 -0400

Post signing of the treaty that was not a treaty and supported exclusively by one party, my bet would be now that Dems (aside from His Majesty) have serious buyers remorse.

It was a pretty bad moment in an Administration full of them to do this deal w/o putting to a formal Senate review and vote. Its yet another precedent by an imperial presidency. Nixon must be proud.