Skip to main content

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, member in good standing of Democratic Party's warmongering wing
A group of Democrats are joining Republicans in trying to undermine the White House's negotiations with Iran by imposing a new set of sanctions. Fifteen of them, actually, who prefer status quo bluster and threats to diplomacy that might actually do something to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. They are:

Bob Menendez (NJ)
Chuck Schumer (NY)
Ben Cardin (MD)
Bob Casey (PA)
Chris Coons (DE)
Dick Blumenthal (CT)
Mark Begich (AK)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Mark Warner (VA)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Cory Booker (NJ)
Joe Manchin (WV)

The Senate equivalent of the Blue Dog caucus is well represented on this list, with Begich, Casey, Donnelly, Landrieu, Manchin, Pryor, and Warner. I've always considered Coons and Blumenthal to be part of the party's business/corporatist wing. But I guess they hate diplomacy too.

The most interesting are Booker and Gillibrand, both harboring presidential ambitions. If anything, 2008 should've taught Democratic presidential contenders that a policy of warmongering no longer plays well in Democratic primaries. Someone might want to remind these two of what Hillary learned that year.

The real danger is that a veto-proof majority could emerge supporting new sanctions, undercutting the administration's diplomacy efforts. We expect that sort of thing from Republicans, of course, but we shouldn't abide it from our Democrats. So use this tool to find out where your own senators stand and send them a message on how you feel about this issue.

So don't sit on the sidelines. Make sure your voice is heard.

Originally posted to kos on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:21 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Tip Jar (157+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angry marmot, BlueJessamine, peacestpete, northerntier, BeerNotWar, Bollox Ref, Sylv, Keone Michaels, TDDVandy, Heavy Mettle, kleinburger, MBramble, sidnora, onionjim, koNko, koosah, xanthippe2, Lost and Found, tarheelblue, Sybil Liberty, Nailbanger, ekgrulez1, mconvente, Lencialoo, Brooke In Seattle, maryabein, emelyn, Alice Olson, sturunner, chuckvw, tytalus, CIndyCasella, rmabelis, Railfan, leftykook, David54, KayCeSF, Glen The Plumber, greenbird, gramofsam1, Loge, TomP, jes2, AoT, TexDem, fcvaguy, pamelabrown, annieli, LABobsterofAnaheim, wintergreen8694, sunbro, mjbleo, leonard145b, OleHippieChick, claytonben, Americans for a Republican Irrelevancy, Rolfyboy6, StrayCat, shoeless, JBL55, akze29, Karen from Maui, Lily O Lady, ehavenot, Capt Crunch, blueoasis, MT Spaces, VickiL, Dvd Avins, enhydra lutris, CJB2012, greenbell, Ezekiel in Exile, Gay CA Democrat, psyched, on the cusp, jnhobbs, Dumbo, allenjo, Sanuk, RUNDOWN, Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson, VA6thDem, schumann, Libby Shaw, LamontCranston, catilinus, Dolphin99, stlsophos, RebeccaG, tardis10, doroma, jfdunphy, native, Flyswatterbanjo, exinferno, CenPhx, hkorens, TKO333, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, sharonsz, Robert Naiman, bsmechanic, janinsanfran, saxoman1, Dragon5616, Persiflage, Lordcaradoc, NonnyO, David Kaib, Lujane, GleninCA, DSPS owl, bythesea, DSWright, eve, phrogge prince, George3, eagleray, This old man, jayden, Vetwife, 4Freedom, Unca Joseph, verdeo, buckstop, nottheonly1, flash123, BeninSC, Bendra, frostbite, spooks51, bloomer 101, Creosote, oldrwizr, 2dot, soaglow, Phoenix Woman, cyncynical, wolf advocate, Julie Steinhaus, nicolemm, Dustee, PipeUp, StonyB, bill warnick, Kit RMP, Skyye, Superskepticalman, Iron Spider, RepublicansDemise, SphericalXS, Ditch Mitch KY, ptressel, zinger99, copymark
  •  Has Hillary Clinton gone on record about this? (57+ / 0-)

    It seems she has studiously avoided commenting on Iran. She needs to be poked and prodded on this incessantly until we have a clear picture of where she stands on this.

    I don't trust her.

    "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

    by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:28:24 AM PST

    •  Holy non-sequitur, Batman! (8+ / 0-)

      You don't trust Hillary Clinton to do what, exactly? She's not in the Senate. She's not a member of the current administration. President Hillary Clinton is at least 3 years away. If you don't trust her then the last thing you want if for her to weigh in on this issue.

      •  Yeah, right. (45+ / 0-)

        Your reasoning, exactly?

        She will duck and avoid commenting on Iran for as long as she can. Which is why she should be asked about it at every opportunity. She's the one who said repeatedly in `08 that "all options should be on the table" with Iran, including "bunker-busting" tactical nukes.

        There is no way I want her sitting in the Oval Office with that kind of thinking. We should know now whether or not she supports these diplomatic efforts with Iran to get an indication of any future intentions she would have should she win the presidency.

        "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

        by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:03:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't wait to find out what GWB thinks (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, sweatyb, Headlight, Dumbo

          about it.

          "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

          by anonevent on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:06:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He's not running for presidenat again, is he? (14+ / 0-)

            "Bob Johnson doesn't have special privileges, because really, why would I entrust that guy with ANYTHING?" - kos, November 9, 2013

            by Bob Johnson on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:20:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  2008 should also have taught us.... (17+ / 0-)

              .......that what they say isn't what they do.

              What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

              by dkmich on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:23:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Clearly what HRC thinks about the Middle East (5+ / 0-)

                is totally relevant. I don't even understand the question...why would we be interested in the (possible) next inhabitant of the White House? Ask Chris Crisco, too.

                What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

                by TerryDarc on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:29:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Its only relevant if its true. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  saucer1234, NonnyO, AlexDrew

                  Today's politicians only tell you what their consultants think you want to hear.  

                  I repeat.   Why would you possibly believe Hillary on this or anything else?

                  What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                  by dkmich on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:38:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And you would find out how? (6+ / 0-)

                    I think asking her would be a great idea. Some people are suspicious of HRC's peace credentials.

                    Bill Clinton's "triangulation" strategy of running just to the right of the leftmost Republican is a formula for failed politics and more and more one for disaster in an election. Stand for something and let it be peace or you don't get my vote.

                    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

                    by TerryDarc on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:42:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, she'll pinky swear. lol ...........nt (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      schumann, AlexDrew, TerryDarc

                      What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                      by dkmich on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:42:48 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry to jump in here, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DSPS owl

                        but I just wanted to let the PTB know that the email attached to the petition has typo. The works "negotiate."

                        If reality clashes with your belief, then the problem clearly is reality.--God

                        by Flyswatterbanjo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:43:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  With the huge lead she has in (0+ / 0-)

                        admittedly early polling (minimum of +64), she does not need us nor will she cater to us. Did Obama in 2008? We sort of saw what we wanted to see in him. Hillary doesn't/didn't have the luxury of being new. I am a Warren man, but she is right to keep silent. She knows that in the end, we will vote for her because she is the lesser evil.

                        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

                        •  No question (0+ / 0-)

                          There were those who expected unicorns and rainbows from President Obama, but grown-ups had some understanding of the insanely complex situation he faced when elected. They also know that, with rare exception, the president can propose bills and advocate for a certain agenda, while Congress calls the shots -- and we have been dealing with one of the most bizarre Congresses in modern history. One of Obama's first acts was to reverse Bill Clinton's appalling policies against the seriously ill/disabled, undoubtedly saving lives. That matters. When he came into office, the US was at the brink of complete economic collapse (even Republicans agree on this point). The Bush admin. had run up unprecedented debt, and against all odds, President Obama has dramatically reduced that debt.  Year after years he has ensured the increase of jobs here, and decrease of jobs being shipped out. I don't know if most people understand just how dangerous our international situation actually was by the time the Bush admin. ended. The international community was concluding that the US needed to be ended to prevent the end of all life on Earth. It was that serious. Obama has dramatically reduced those international tensions while phasing out US military attacks on other countries; it will take many years to repair our international relations. And the list goes on.

                          •  Kudos! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Silina, Skyye

                            I applaud your comments a hundred times over and concur ABSOLUTELY!  We will be dealing with the damage and the evils and corruption of the Bush administration for DECADES to come, unfortunately.  In the meantime, we need to move the remaining Republican/TP  party members DOWN AND OUT of Washington as expediently as possible, if we are to move this country forward in any meaningful way.  Before they bring about the end of civilization.  They're already turning us into a Third World Country.  I only hope that one day we will learn the truth about 9/11.  Probably not in my lifetime, and probably not till he is dead and gone.  

                          •  Amen! (0+ / 0-)

                            Hey I cant just recommend on this diary, Is it me or can others?

                            I can recommend the diarist but not the comments here?

                          •  Recommend comments (0+ / 0-)

                            I can't recommend comments either and I sure would like to.

                          •  Great Comment (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            slakn1

                            I agree with you great comment 100 percent.  Now however we must fight the TPP which is a Trans-pacific Pact that is more like NAFTA and not good for American workers.  I don't want to think President Obama is for this but at this point I am not sure who wants this so much.

                        •  Warren, sanders (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MDhome

                          or grayson  for me

                          I agree most politicians are experts or hire speech writers, spokesperson to play and part and sway us by emotional theater.

                          Can we get an amendment to make it a crime to not tally our votes on matters like this, after giving us the information, and then voting in direct representation?

                    •  Just remember, (0+ / 0-)

                      to get a lasting peace, you MUST retain the right to wage and win a war. Once you give up the right, and the capability, your peace is at the mercy of the first party who decides they don't like your attitude, or your religion.  Seems we have been down that road before, and it cost us two wars, not just some relatively minor police actions

                      •  Chet - totally right man. Those who do not (0+ / 0-)

                        remember history are doomed to repeat it.  

                      •  With the US military budget (0+ / 0-)

                        greater than the next 10 countries combined, and with the US spending more as a percent of GDP than any other of those top ten except Saudi Arabia (which spends a staggering 11+% of GDP on the military), I don't think we're in danger of that any time soon.

                        Just when have we given up the "right" and the "capability" to wage war, and which two wars has it cost us, and how, exactly?

                        "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison

                        by gharlane on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 07:15:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  all politicians (0+ / 0-)

                    then why primary a Dem if none can be believed?

                    Would it not be better to separate those with some credibility and those with none?

                    Another shining sphere flies from Feior's hands, and you are frozen where you stand

                    by GideonAB on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:44:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why vote for a Dem if none can be believed? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      patbahn

                      Seriously.

                      I believe in Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley and Bernie Sanders right now.

                      What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

                      by TerryDarc on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:48:17 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                        •  Would have gotten out of my deathbed (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          patbahn

                          to vote for BHO. I understand what you're saying and I'd probably do the same for HRC but not with a lot of enthu$ia$m if you catch my drift.

                          What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

                          by TerryDarc on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:10:41 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  For me (0+ / 0-)

                        A clear a rule of thumb is whether they are discussing the issues or merely pandering to donors (the middle class). For complex reasons, if they are focused exclusive on the middle class, they are absolutely not progressive.They are merely pandering. They know that it is not possible to rebuild the middle class out of thin air, ignoring poverty, as Sanders and Warren have chosen to do.  Both very abruptly stopped standing with the American people to careful (repeatedly) stress that they stand ONLY with those who have incomes over roughly $35k. It is the most blatant elitism, and this agenda virtually guarantees that the next president will be a Republican (assuming a successful Clinton coup, pushing out Vice President Joe Biden).  The middle class has been getting phased out for years, and the Clinton Dems have been poison for the masses of working poor and those who are far worse off.

                      •  Merkley? (0+ / 0-)

                        I wouldn't be so sure of Merkley.   I'm in OR and have tried (along w/others) to get his assistance re: issues connected to a Navy DEIS and he was not helpful in the long run.   Just not interested.

                        He has no problems w/OR becoming much more involved w/the MIC then it has been.   Pro wave energy subsidies even if the sites will interfere w/the commercial fisheries--and so far, wave energy in OR has been nothing but subsidies.  

                    •  Actions speak louder than words. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jfdunphy, AlexDrew, TerryDarc

                      As our MBs always says......."don't tell me what you think, show me what you do, and I'll tell you what you think".  

                      Words are cheap.

                      What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                      by dkmich on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:43:44 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Because (0+ / 0-)

                      Doing some research will show you who can't be trusted, based on their own records. Like all important decisions, you have to get as much info as possible, weigh all the factors, and try to determine which candidate's agenda would be in the nation's best interests.

                  •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                    And, the true is that when trying to have any kind of diplomatic efforts with Iran to get them to stop their nuclear intentions they'll also only tell you what they think you want to hear.  

                    You can't negotiate with Iran.  Look at the history of the so-called "peace talks" between the Palestinians and Israel.  There are have been all kinds of awards and all kinds of lauding of just so many of these efforts and today, it's every bit as dangerous and volatile there as ever.  

                  •  Get Her on the Record (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    greenbell, patbahn, native

                    It's not as important to believe what she says as it is to get what she says on record now. Before she has a chance to weasel into whatever is most convenient for the relatively brief and chaotic period while she's actually campaigning. Before the consequences of the policy are known.

                    She's now got "if I knew then what I know now I wouldn't have voted to invade Iraq" safely squared away. She shouldn't have it so easy with Iran. Unless she's at ease with actual political leadership.

                    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:38:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  records (0+ / 0-)

                    You need to look into their records of votes (if they were in Congress), and check which policies they have supported, and which ones they have opposed. It does take some online research. Don't simply trust media. Putting a "Bold Progressive" sticker on some pol for fund-raising events doesn't make the pol even liberal-ish.

                  •  What has Hillary said, "according to you" (0+ / 0-)

                    Hillary hasn't made a comment about this recent affair..If she has please submit..(seriously)..I'd like to see it but I haven't so far seen or read her opinion on this anywhere until you stated she had..Where did you see this?

                •  Also Ask Christie (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TerryDarc

                  Yes, Christie should go on record. But that's a reach, since Christie isn't necessarily going to run, so he probably won't get asked. Clinton is definitely running, so she should definitely get asked.

                  Your statement, right down to the "too", validates Clinton being asked her position on this.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:36:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If Chris Crisco doesn't run... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...I'll eat my hat: baseball cap, actually.

                    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

                    by TerryDarc on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 05:24:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  H Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                    The better-off (and they're the minority) don't seem to "get" the tremendous opposition to Clinton among those not as well-off as middle classers, with incomes below roughly $35k. They chose not to vote rather than vote for Al Gore, they heavily voted for Barack Obama, and they absolutely will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

                    •  Evidence that "the poor hate Hillary" please. (0+ / 0-)

                      Poor people who I know want jobs more than anything.  The centrist position of the Clintons - AND of Obama -  has proven to be the best at maintaining jobs in the US.  
                      Far left folks, such as the Hillary haters here who are not working for the tea party, do not have a proven prescription to create US jobs.  

                •  no chance (0+ / 0-)

                  The Dem media marketed to liberals ignore the tremendous opposition to the Clintons out here, largely due to their pro-war, pro-NAFTA, anti-New Deal agenda. On socioeconomic policies (which determine the overall quality of life in the US), both Clintons have actually been to the right of such historic conservatives as Eisenhower and Nixon!

                  •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

                    What I'd like to know is all front runners position on the TPP and "fast track"to ram it through Congress without nary any oversight. Because After NFTA, we saw an awful lot of outsourcing. I consider myself a staunch Dem, but would not vote for Clinton if she is pushing for TPP like she accepted NAFTA when it was proposed by Bill.

              •  Amen (0+ / 0-)

                All theater until the pivot, when necessary to get the vote

            •  more or less (0+ / 0-)

              We see another surge of the two Clintons pushing themselves into any/every public event covered by media.

        •  "all options are on the table" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ipracticedissent

          sounds like something that notorious warmonger Barack Obama has said. I wonder where he stands on these negotiations.

        •  I can predict her response. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, patbahn, native, PDiddie

          "On the one hand bla bla... On the other hand bla bla...  BUT WE MUST BE DECISIVE AND FORCEFUL!"

          That's what she did in 2002.  And then she voted for war.  This time she doesn't have to show any real cards.

        •  she'll tell you what you want to hear (0+ / 0-)

          Same as Obama did and Clinton did and Carter did.  Well you get the idea.

        •  During the Benghazi hearings..., (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenbell, This old man, 4Freedom

          ... Hillary said she favored an increased US presence in Africa "to protect our interests in that region."  [That's either very close or a verbatim quote.  I don't have a video of that on YouTube, but it's surely somewhere in C-SPAN archives.]

          WHAT "interests?" I wondered.  Oil corporations, most likely.  Do any US corporations own diamond mines in Africa?  A place to set up a base to keep an eye on the Mideast nations?  I don't really care.

          Every warning siren, bell, whistle, and noisemaker went off inside my brain, screaming "Nooooooooo...!."

          I don't want a warmonger in the Oval Office!!!  No more US troops sent anywhere; bring them ALL back home to US soil.

          As a woman, I don't vote for women just because they're women.  (That was Poopy McCain's error in picking the Tundra Tramp; he bet that women would vote for another woman just based on sex.  Wrong.)  I vote based on my opinions vs candidate opinions on issues.  Vague answers means that if they told the truth I wouldn't like the answer, so that's an automatic non-support stance for me.  Hillary is prone to vague answers, and she was a warmonger back during the '07/'08 campaign season, so she never had my support - still does NOT have my support.

          [Didn't Hillary favor armed intervention in Iran during the '07/'08 campaign?  Or am I mis-remembering?]

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:43:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And we have no interests in an entire continent (0+ / 0-)

            other than oil?

            •  Her interest should be in North America (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NonnyO, Vetwife

              And it's about time she stopped turning her back to all of it west of the Hudson.

              •  They aren't mutually exclusive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                miango113

                Isolationism doesn't work and our interests don't end at borders. Do you really believe we have no interests in the affairs of an entire continent?

                •  Isolationism (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe isolationism does not work, although I would have to see evidence to that effect. I notice that you don't offer any. On the other hand, there should be a happy middle ground between sticking our noses in everyone else's business and locking the borders.
                  You will find that very often, "our interests"are really the interests of MULTI national companies, not strictly American companies. We give, for example obscene subsidies to BP (British Petroleum) and other oil companies who then fraudulently hide their profits abroad.
                  When our children get maimed or killed on Foreign conflicts during a real war of aggression, It is for these interests that they die, and the interests of all War Profiteers. It is also to help THESE interests that we spend billions in wars on countries THAT HAVE OIL IN THEIR SOIL but are not too interested in some genocide in far away Africa.
                  I hope you will all read "war is a racket", published by "Veterans for Peace". It was a real eye opener for me.

            •  I'm interested... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              4Freedom

              ... in preserving the wildlife habitat of gorillas, chimps, bonobos, elephants, lions, cheetahs, and assorted other fabulous wildlife in Africa.

              Corporate interests?  Why give them carte blanche to destroy the environment and hire mercenaries (or be the mercenaries) that kill off people and wildlife and pollute water sources, land, oceans, all of which makes for places that cannot support human or animal life.... etc....?

              The disconnect between what's good for life and living and peaceful coexistence, and what's good for corporate greed is the chasm into which a person with a conscience can't look without howling in anger and despair.

              I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

              by NonnyO on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 05:42:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Tundra Tramp is awesome, NonnyO! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NonnyO

            Don't know if you cooked that one up, but it's awesome. ;)

            Yes, Hillary has a hawkish history, and I want her to be clear on her stance towards sanctions and possible action against Iran.

            My hope is that we will increase our rapprochement with Iran, rather than amp up hostilities.

            Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations. ~ George Orwell

            by 4Freedom on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 09:04:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  :-) Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              4Freedom

              I no longer remember if I thought that one up or read Tundra Tramp somewhere; I've been using it for a while now.  [Well, she stole a term I had been using since Kerry's campaign when I always referred to our presses as Lamestream Media.  I can no longer use the term because she co-opted it.]  I just refuse to use her given name without just cause.  I want her real name forgotten to time.  It's embarrassing just to know a few other women can be that monumentally stupid, and intelligent women are compared to them (altho I have no idea why) - worse, it's positively painful knowing people actually voted for someone that stupid, just as I never figured out why anyone voted for the monumentally stupid f#ckwad Dumbya!

              With that much stupidity and lack of intelligence and lack of "book learning," it should be obvious to even the least intelligent people that she does not belong in public office.  A few years ago on a Twin Cities TV news segment, one fellow being interviewed was asked if he thought she was qualified to be VP or prez (think this was when she was hawking one of her first books?) and he actually said he was going to vote for her because she could operate a snow machine!!!  [I no longer remember if he was the one who also said she got his vote because she could hunt, or if he was another person in line.  Really!]

              Seriously!  Right..., I had to pick my chin up off my lap over that one.  Lucky I saw/heard that while sitting.

              As far as Hillary is concerned, she didn't have my support in '08 [nor during all the years George Huffalupalugus mentioned her running for prez EVERY Sunday from the late '90s forward].  I don't care who the candidates are or if they're male or female.  Any warmongering rhetoric and they don't get my vote.  OTOH, we're also familiar with the ones who lied with semi-straight faces and proved to be warmongering pretzelnitwits, too, so not even they can be trusted.

              I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

              by NonnyO on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 11:38:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  The many faces of Hillary (0+ / 0-)

            You probably are not mis-remembering: in 89, she wanted to immediately open a channel of communication with Iran, whereas in 08, "no options should be off the table". Obviously, there is a big span of time between the 2 statements. She is definite about not wanting a "nuclear Iran", even if that means war. On the other hand, I think she will mollify her position when Iran looks more conciliatory, like now. (The Wiki is a good source of information, actually)
            To make up my mind about who I'd support, I'd have to see what other Democrats are there and how THEY have voted on the various issues facing our Nation.

          •  Everyone who fears nuclear war agrees that Iran (0+ / 0-)

            - whose leaders WANT to die in war - must not get nuclear weapons.  Iranian leaders have guaranteed to use nuclear weapons on Israel and on the US. If people like you are willing to let this occur, then you miss the lessons of history, and deserve to burn in nuclear fires.  

        •  I agree about the threat of a Clinton Presidency (0+ / 0-)

          for the same reason and many more.  We need to keep in mind that the Democratic "establishment" has a ready hand out for donations and which unfortunately is all too willing to pass those donations along to ANYONE willing to run with a (D) after their name.
          I was infuriated at the volume of emails I received from Democrats at the end of the year, all asking to support them because of the Republican menace, but MUTE on where THEY stood on issues!

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          Oh, cause Mitt Romney would have been better on the subject of spending money on wars and more conflict in the Middle East, right?  Or ANY other Republican, right?  By the way, I wonder how many of these Democrats are part of the "Third Way" that opposes Elizabeth Warren?  

      •  Unelectable (0+ / 0-)

        While being promoted by the Clinton faction of Congress and some lib media, there is tremendous opposition based on her own long record of support for the right-wing agenda.

        •  You know, that is exactly what the tea party says (0+ / 0-)

          - Hillary is unelectable due to her record of support for left wing causes.  Abe Lincoln pointed out that when the fanatics of both left and right attack you, then you probably are about where you should be.  As is Hillary.  And Barak.  
          Or do you wish you now had president Romney, because you backed Ralph Nader?  That worked so well on Al Gore.  You lefties gave us 8 years of Bush II that we still have not recovered from..  

      •  I agree, she shouldn't... (0+ / 0-)

        touch this until more information is available and there are also things we don't know. I'm beginning to wonder what the Democrats are doing. I am a Democrat, but seriously, they do have a past of losing elections that should have been handed to them easily..They can screw up as easy as the GOP lie bold faced with no human compassion..We can't allow them to contaminate her before she even decides to run..
        On the other hand Elizabeth Warren is looking better daily. No past connections, no husband to worry about embarrassing her..or "NAFTA"..and she does speak her mind. I love that about Warren.
        Right now I can state, If I had to choose between Warren and Clinton..Warren would get my vote. But Hillary is due this much..I just hope she can pull away from Bill's past a little more. He went along with House Senate GOP to allow deregulations of media ownership and other bad choices in his second term...I had hoped he'd "get them back"..for hurting his family as they did..It's not as if other President's didn't cheat. I don't think that is necessarily a impeachable offense...and it's not as if he didn't KNOW those slimy GOP were looking for anything, like they do w/Obama now..But Obama has decency, more than any other President in my voting life.

    •  Of course she hasn't (11+ / 0-)

      She's still considering a run in 2016 and she knows that her votes on Iraq sank her in 2008. It would be foolish to comment now.

      If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

      by AoT on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:04:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Considering Bill's war hawk comments on Syria (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OleHippieChick

      I wonder if that reflects Hillary's views as well and if they have really learned anything or not.

    •  Listening Tour Part II (0+ / 0-)
    •  She's going to wait until (8+ / 0-)

      the policy has been a clear success or failure and come out on the winning side.

      Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

      by psychodrew on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:34:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  She hasn't commented publicly (5+ / 0-)

      Team Hillary has said she supports giving diplomacy more time but hasn't concerns blah blah blah. Somehow managing to waffle through proxies. We know this: she's never met a war she didn't like. Iraq? Check? Surge in Afghanistan? Check? Libya? Check. Syria (arming opposition)? Check. She would be an extremely violent president, even more violent than President Obama.

    •  That's what the primaries are for, no? (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with you but don't care that much what her position is. She voted for the debacle in Iraq, that's good enough for me to write her OFF! Unless she is in the ballot against a reptard.

    •  she doesn't need to (4+ / 0-)

      We don't need to hear from Hillary to know her stance.  She was bought and paid for by AIPAC long ago.

      Green is more than an ad slogan. Live Green, vote Green.

      by green in brooklyn on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:30:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So are most of those on this list (4+ / 0-)

        ... I'd be willing to bet.

        Bibi's minions are busy little beavers on both sides of the aisle.

        We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

        by Dallasdoc on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:21:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, 4Freedom

          AIPAC, Likud & the Saudi monarchy are all vested in keeping U.S./Iran relations in full confrontation mode. They all WANT war, or rather, want the U.S. to wage war on behalf of their interests. The only thing that can be accomplished by imposing new sanctions on Iran at this time is to scuttle the interim accord.

          Whatever they are saying in public about "strengthening the president's negotiating hand" or "assuring an acceptable final outcome", Sens. Menendez, Schumer, Graham, McCain, et al. surely understand this & are thus acting with obvious duplicity.

          No, passing this bill would drastically weaken the president's hand, & weaken the U.S.'s hand in negotiations as well. How can Obama negotiate ANYTHING if he lacks the political power to deliver his side of the bargain? That's what is most infuriating about these Democratic senators doing AIPAC & the neoconservatives' bidding - they will be complicit delivering the president not merely a political rebuke, but an international humiliation comparable to Woodrow Wilson in 1919-20. If these senators want to render the president a lame duck, this is the sure way to do it.

          And in the end, such a course of action, by tanking the interim accords & undermining future negotiations, would make a nuclear Iran much more likely.

    •  The Wind Beneath My Fingers Clinton (0+ / 0-)

      All Hill is going on the record for is "supporting women" and, like Chuck Shumer, saying that people are against Wall Street just for the sake of being against Wall Street.

    •  we know something about Hillary on this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Johnson

      she hasn't publicly commented, AFAIK, but some surrogates did so on her behalf in a piece in Politico.

      I wrote about it here:

      Does Hillary's Silence on Iran Deal Show Neocon Influence on Her Presidential Run?

      We have a petition to Hillary at MoveOn, urging her to back the deal:

      It's 3AM: Where's Hillary on the Iran nuclear deal?

    •  Clinton pro-war (0+ / 0-)

      H. Clinton is only marginally relevant at this point, but she has a solid record of being pro-war.

    •  I don't trust most any of them anymore! (0+ / 0-)
    •  I dont (0+ / 0-)

      trust Hillary either, especially when she's quiet..

      My memory says she either mis-spoke, about to mis-speak, or weighing what will happen if she chooses to mis-speak...

      Can't get over that little jig about her never being able to forget the time she and Chelsea got off the plane in a country with a pack of guns threatening them... until the video revealed... NOT

      Not saying I might have to bite the bullet and vote that way.. but just saying

  •  War's Good for Much Business nt (13+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:30:22 AM PST

  •  At Least Reid Isn't On There (for now) (13+ / 0-)

    Does he have a public position on sanctions?  In other words, how likely is it a sanctions bill will get a vote?

  •  Enough. (20+ / 0-)
    If anything, 2008 should've taught Democratic presidential contenders that a policy of warmongering no longer plays well in Democratic primaries. Someone might want to remind these two of what Hillary learned that year.
    •  Might be a little more gray there than some (4+ / 0-)

      would like.  Favoring stronger sanctions is not necessarily the same as "warmongery."

      "Where some see a system for encouraging discussion . . . others see an echo chamber of bad grammar, unchecked stupidity, and constructive interference . . . " -- Ars Technica

      by Rikon Snow on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:42:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  true... (4+ / 0-)

        But, if it ends up with the same result (talks breaking down), then we will likely be right back to the warmongering phase of American politics.

      •  it sure ain't peacemongering. (16+ / 0-)

        if the deal blows up, we can safely assume Iran will continue to develop it's nuclear program, and then what do you think happens?  Iran needs the deal to be rid of sanctions, we need it to constrain our nutjobs.

        Besides, we imposed sanctions like the ones we have now, let alone new ones, on some random country like Guatemala, it'd be seen as an act of war.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:58:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Guatemala (0+ / 0-)

          isn't in violation of the NPT. Imposing sanctions on Iran is far from random.

          •  thank you, captain obvious (6+ / 0-)

            i'm not saying sanctions on Iran are illegal or should be unilaterally repealed, i'm saying the come at great human cost and our policy should be to seek mutually acceptable ways to lessen them.  A choice between deaths for lack of medicine and deaths from bombing is not a choice we should accept for Iran policy, and the sense in which we're not at war is one that misses a deeper truth.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:21:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Iran can avoid all of the costs (0+ / 0-)

              associated with the sanctions by complying with the NPT.

              •  under the deal (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                native

                they'd declare their enrichment capability and have inspections.  Whether or not civilian nuclear energy programs are in or out of compliance is a subject to debate, I suppose, but if you were Iran, would you unilaterally give up civilian energy programs (meaning you'd have to use more oil and gas to meet domestic needs), and hope that the West agrees it's good enough?  Not after the failure to find WMD in Iraq, post-invasion.

                Clearly the sanctions served their purposes to now if Iran is coming to the table, finding the cost of sanctions outweighing the economic benefits of civilian energy developments and the potential but uncertain military gains a weapon "might" give them (assuming for instance Israel or Israel through the United States doesn't have or exercise second strike capability), but your framing of the issue is the height of fatuousness.

                There's also an internal political angle (for both countries), but perhaps the only thing worse than the Ayatollahs' getting nukes is Iran getting nukes just when the Ayotollahs are falling, from a "proliferation" standpoint, but the sanctions that weaken the government and perhaps inhibit but do not prevent further development, creating even graver risk.  As such, a negotiated solution is better for all parties, except for the fearmongers in both U.S. and Iran who are fond of demonizing the other for political gain.  You and the clerics deserve each other, and the Iranian people deserve Obama and Kerry.  

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:40:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Rouhani IS a cleric (0+ / 0-)

                  There's not a lot of evidence that the clerics are falling. Iran is talking about coming to the table, but actions speak louder than words. I'm willing to give the interim deal a chance, but in reality, there's very little chance (close to zero, in my opinion) that it will in fact work. Then what? If we go the sanctiosn route, the we get the predicatble screams of "wan mongering"  and the chants of "give diplomacy a chance" when in fact sanctions are an essential part of diplomacy in this case.  What happens when the interim deal fails? I don't support the new bill at this time, but I don't agree that sanctions are war mongering, nor do I believe that there is much appetite in the US for war with Iran, especially consideering how poorly Iraq has turned out thus far.

                  •  I possess that information, thank you. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    native, CenPhx, Notreadytobenice, DSPS owl

                    So is Pope Francis.  That doesn't make him Benedict or Innocent III or L. Ron Hubbard.

                    If you're willing to give the interim deal a chance, then we can wait a few months for new sanctions bills.  Seems like we have exactly enough sanctions in the short run, and of course the more cut off Iran is from the outside world, the better a nuclear program looks.  More pressure could easily be counterproductive.

                    I suppose there's a possible world in which these Senators are acting based on considered positions, but they are after all politicians not thinkers, and the elegant explanation is they are demagoging the issue, so warmonger is entirely a fair thing to say about them.  Whether that's an electorally good idea is another question, but it's not like we should give them a pass in the hope that wishy-washy soccer moms might ultimately nix war.

                    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                    by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:57:11 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you've got that info (0+ / 0-)

                      Then why aren't you using it correctly?

                      •  he serves a different role from (0+ / 0-)

                        the Supreme Leader and represents a reformist impulse.  He's also a Mujtahadi, not an Ayatollah.  When I said Ayatollahs, I meant Ayatollahs.  Rouhani's clerical role wasn't terribly significant to the argument to what happens to the nukes if the Islamic Republic as we know it falls versus evolving into something more moderate.  

                        Troll.

                        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                        by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:14:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you posted this (0+ / 0-)
                          You and the clerics deserve each other, and the Iranian people deserve Obama and Kerry.
                          As if Rouhani was not a cleric.

                          Troll indeed.

                          •  yes, nitpickeration (0+ / 0-)

                            and trolling are different.  He is a cleric, but not "the clerics," as in the hardliners.  It's like when the kremlinologists made abig show of pointing out Gorbachev was in fact a communist and a member of the politburo as if that proved anything.

                            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                            by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:32:06 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know if he is a hardliner or not (0+ / 0-)

                            He hasn't been talking like one recently, but I've heard that tune before from Iran. I've been hearing about So called moderate Iranian leaders since the days of Bani-Sadr, but there hasn't been any real change. We keep hearing about how Iran is young and chaning, Iranian kids like to wear baggy clothing so they can sneak out of the house out night wearing Levis and Gap T shirts and  listen to the Rolling Stones, but in the end, no substantive change  happense.

                    •  "$enator$ acting ba$ed on con$idered po$ition$"n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  Want to know who profits from "sanctions"? (0+ / 0-)

              any other country who refuses to go along: While we are busy refusing to export products in Iran, Communist China is doing just that ... and they are getting richer, much richer.

          •  When do we sanction Israel? (7+ / 0-)

            They've got nukes, don't allow inspections, hell they lock up their own scientists for even acknowledging the existence of their nukes.

      •  Yes it is (12+ / 0-)

        The Iranians have said they'll break off the discussions if the Senate passes such a bill.

        Unless they are kidding.

        Scuttling diplomatic discussions leads DIRECTLY to war with Iran.

        All these assholes are beholden to the same stockbrokers Netanyahu used to work for or scared to death of mouth-breathing JeezizNazis pouring out of their Obama Hatred Centers to vote them out in November.

        It's incredible/unendurable that these morons can't give the process the six months that were agreed to and that they are perfectly willing to jeopardize truly historic diplomatic efforts.

        We should be associating these assholes with the assholes in Iran who are partnering with them in trying to destroy the negotiations..."So tell me Senator Menendez, why are you helping the hard-line Republican Guard in Iran?"

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:07:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Iran doesn't have the right to break the agreement (0+ / 0-)

          merely because one House of Congress passes legislation. If that's true, then Iran is not serious about this deal.

          •  So what do you want? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Loge, maryabein

            talks between our countries or no talks?

            Bluster or not, the Iranian leadership is divided and there are people who are more than happy to use such an action to stab the new president from behind, the Revolutionary Guard is busting his balls over this every day.

            You say if they pulled back over this that they aren't serious, they can say EXACTLY the same thing about us, that we can't be trusted to make good-faith agreements because we talk out of both sides of our faces, we're saying "let's talk" and "let's bash Iran harder" at the same time...

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:41:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I want talks (0+ / 0-)

              If it appears that they have the potential to bear fruit. We have an agreement with Iran. One of the points is not that Iran gets to queer the deal because one House of the U.S. Congress passes legislation that it does not like.  It most certainly does not say that we aren't serious if the Senate, which has no authority to unilaterally make foreign policy decisions, passes a bill. It would say that we are not serious if both Houses pass it and Obama signs it, but that does not appear to be in the cards.

              •  You think they dont-they think they DO (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Flyswatterbanjo

                the point is to continue the process and not antagonize the people we're supposed to be negotiating with, it is NOT necessary and it's antagonizing people for no purpose.

                "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

                by leftykook on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:36:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  No, but it tells Iran (4+ / 0-)

            that Obama's not a credible negotiator.  Ideally he'd veto the sanctions, but why would his own party put him in that position?

            It also sends a none-too-subtle message that future arms reduction treaties that may need ratification are DOA, so it keeps anyone from going further than six month suspensions.   And Iran's the one who's unserious . . .

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:50:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell

            Why don't they have that right?

            The US has the right to withdraw from any agreement, so why not Iran?

            If knowledge is power and power corrupts, does that mean that knowledge corrupts?

            by AoT on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:23:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Let's talk about that word "agreement" (0+ / 0-)

            To "agree" requires two parties.  There is no agreement if the US says, well we just don't like it but you go ahead and keep your end of the bargain by yourself... that is not an agreement, it is a recipe for trouble.

            IMHO the NY and NJ senators are playing local politics. They don't want to risk the more extreme nationalists among the Jewish vote, which includes most of the Orthodox and Russian immigrants, though not the non-Orthodox communities.  A few very rich donors may also be calling the shots.

          •  Actually, if new sanctions are imposed (0+ / 0-)

            the U.S. would be in violation of the interim agreement. In the medium- to long-term this would lead to the erosion of international sanctions, since it would be the U.S. side acting in bad faith.

            And let's be serious: whatever the U.S. is saying about "all options on the table", does anyone seriously believe the U.S. is in any position to wage war on Iran? Most analysts believe the U.S. could only delay the nuclear program by missile strikes &/or aerial bombardment. And it's obvious that the U.S. does not have the capacity or will to invade & occupy Iran & prop up a client government there.

        •  Uhhh..."Revolutionary Guards".... (0+ / 0-)

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:44:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you! (0+ / 0-)

          I was amazed we could have this much discussion on this topic with no mention of that thug Netanyahu. The elephant in the room. I lived in his neighborhood, I would approve obtaining nukes or any other means of keeping the wolves away from the door. Witness North Korea, friendless except for Dennis Rodman; any wonder they embrace nukes?

      •  It is here, Rikon. (4+ / 0-)

        There's no gray area allowed on the Kos.

        Make no mistake: I also think it blows that these gutless pukes are being led around by the nose by AIPAC.  But if we can throw in a few 'warmongering' charges at HRC by association, so much the better.

      •  Yes, rather than negotiate we will wage (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, CenPhx

        economic warfare, but that is in no way hawkish. Sheeesh. Sanctions are warfare, and very often the prelude to armed conflict, directly or via proxy.
        \

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:12:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is in this case. (0+ / 0-)

        Besides the sanctions, the bill also basically says that if Israel attacks Iran (in self defense of course) we have to follow them in.

        If reality clashes with your belief, then the problem clearly is reality.--God

        by Flyswatterbanjo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:50:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Stronger sanctions will put us on the path to war, (0+ / 0-)

        So, no. while is is not quite warmongering (= actively calling for armed conflict) It is not exactly calling for Peace either.

    •  Obama and Clinton proposed the same policies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      Obama just did a better job of selling it. Anyone that supported Obama in 2008 thinking he was the candidate of peace was sorely disappointed.

      •  Obama wasn't a candidate of peace (8+ / 0-)

        He never said he was anti-war, just anti "Dumb wars", by which he meant Iraq.

        •  Obama has kept us out of Syria. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          4Freedom

          Just when it appeared that his advisers & Netanyahu had succeeded in goading him into intervention, the political support wasn't there. Americans of all political persuasions were united in opposition. The Democratic base abandoned him, & the Republicans cynically became peaceniks when they saw an opportunity to hand him a defeat. Surely it wasn't one of the president's finer moments, but in the end he made the right decision.

          This, in my view, was one of the more significant developments of 2013 in foreign policy & domestic politics. It still infuriates the Washington foreign-policy establishment. This Iran sanctions bill could even be taken as a political counter-punch from AIPAC & the neoconservatives: clearly the intent is to undermine the interim agreement, yank the rug out from under the president & set us back on the path to war. But Americans are tired of Middle Eastern wars; if we scuttle negotiations, the most likely outcome is a nuclear-armed Iran.

      •  Hillary was the war candidate (10+ / 0-)

        and had the voting record to prove it. Obama did not. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and delivered/is delivering on that. He promised to get bin Laden and he did. He never sold himself as a "peace candidate".

        Denis Kucinich was the only peace candidate.

        •  Obama promised (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, Rikon Snow, Dragon5616

          to send more troops into Afghanistan. That was "The right battlefield."

          •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma
          •  and that worked out great! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana, Ipracticedissent, demreplib33

            So the guy who proposed to send more troops wasn't the warmonger? Nice.

            On top of which it seems obvious now that sending more troops to Afghanistan wasn't actually the best idea. The horse was already out of the barn. George W Bush had lost both Iraq and Afghanistan long before Obama was elected.

          •  Yes, but there was no pre-election indication... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            allenjo, native, CenPhx, mimi, 4Freedom

            ...that he planned to triple the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. He vowed to send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan during the campaign. He ultimately sent the equivalent of 13.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:07:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  about 70,000 of them (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greenbell, CenPhx

              for the Good War.

              Who could have imagined back then that 5 years would come and go and we would still be at war in Afghanistan?

              For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan to Dover AF mortuary, "God bless the cause of "The Good War" for which they died" - As if any war can be called Good in its 13th year, America's longest war.

              by allenjo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:15:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  exactly! (0+ / 0-)

              It was one of the biggest reasons I didn't vote for him in the primary.

              I always wanted out of Afghanistan. I'm glad my Senator Mikulski supports diplomacy but I am mad as  hell at Cardin, who I worked for to get him elected- at the time he was one of only a few in the House to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. I am going to call his office tomorrow. I am deeply disgusted.

              They also serve, who only stand and wait. ~ John Milton On His Blindness

              by vcmvo2 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 01:28:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  seriously? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          atana, OleHippieChick, Lying eyes, akze29

          The difference in the candidates was negligible. They had mirror proposals for withdrawal from Iraq. They had similar proposals for "victory" in Afghanistan.

          To say that Clinton was the warmonger and Obama wasn't is ludicrous. But people believed that (And still do despite what has happened). Because Clinton voted for the AUMF and Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time.

          I like Obama, I think he's been a fine President. I don't think he or Hillary Clinton is a warmonger. The diarist shouldn't have used that word to tar people he/she disagrees with.

          •  The only claim I made (3+ / 0-)

            was exactly what you just said - the difference in their voting records.

            And, I would agree that fundamentally their positions weren't that different. Obama simply had more credibility on the issue given his votes.  If they were dramatically different, I don't think Obama would have picked her for SoS.

            •  learning the wrong lesson from 2008 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fcvaguy, CenPhx

              that's my point. Two candidates with different voting histories but similar proposals, we elected the non- "war candidate" and he pursued the same policies that the "war candidate" proposed.

              Perhaps we should be re-evaluating what we mean by "war candidate"?

              Maybe voting/not-voting for something in the Senate isn't a sufficiently accurate metric.

          •  They are both warhawks. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greenbell, native

            IMO, having listened to Howard Dean on Morning Joe, say that he had always been a warhawk kind of floored me.

            It seems they all think they have to hawk war to be taken seriously in this warlike, MIC nation, sadly.

            And listening to Debbie W/S and Pelosi on their gungho warhawking on Syria, and their, "I can't get the children out of my mind," blather was pretty sickening.

            I don't think he or Hillary Clinton is a warmonger. The diarist shouldn't have used that word to tar people he/she disagrees with.

            For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan to Dover AF mortuary, "God bless the cause of "The Good War" for which they died" - As if any war can be called Good in its 13th year, America's longest war.

            by allenjo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:22:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I chose Obama over HRC (0+ / 0-)

            . . . precisely because of her support for the Iraq war. Millions of other Democrats did too. Yes, I feel played like a fiddle, but it's safe to say that no candidate will coast to the Democratic presidential nomination on a program of war in the Middle East.

  •  Even conservative idols like Winston Churchill (8+ / 0-)

    generally thought that Jaw Jaw was better than War War...... all the time.

    Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as shall never be put out.

    by Bollox Ref on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:33:40 AM PST

  •  Blumenthal is following in Lie berman's footsteps (12+ / 0-)

    and that really sucks.
    I hope Murphy doesn't join him.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:34:13 AM PST

  •  Never got the Gillibrand love here (29+ / 0-)

    Wall St. patsy and now war mongerer. Obviously she thinks that will be good for her presidential ambitions and must have missed Hillary's debaclej
    Her pedigree is deeply blue dog from conservative upstate NY and her NRA rating with her guns under her bed. Amazing how willing people are to put that aside for some lip service.

    The most interesting are Booker and Gillibrand, both harboring presidential ambitions. If anything, 2008 should've taught Democratic presidential contenders that a policy of warmongering no longer plays well in Democratic primaries. Someone might want to remind these two of what Hillary learned that year.
  •  Ugh. (9+ / 0-)

    Are these Democrats watching Fox News?  Why do we even give a shit if Iran has a nuclear program?

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:35:19 AM PST

  •  I called Hagen's office when this first... (4+ / 0-)

    came to light and was told the sanctions would only go into effect if Iran hasn't keep up their end of the deal in six months.  What is the true story and when is the next vote?  Thanks.

    Einstein’s Theory of Relative Stupidity: Anyone who attempts to make George Bush look like a frigging genius, will end up looking like George Bush.

    by quiet in NC on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:36:21 AM PST

  •  Funny that this is a mix of east coast est. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, tari

    and Dems who face challenging races back in their home states. I can understand those in their states where they have to campaign hard, but why the folks representing the Northeast? What's that all about?

  •  Politics is local, sometimes. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rikon Snow

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:37:19 AM PST

  •  DINOs? (8+ / 0-)

    If you prefer war over peace, and Wall Street over Main Street, should we just consider you to be part of the GOP?

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:38:39 AM PST

  •  The MIC likes war. And they pay more (10+ / 0-)

    than peace folks do.

    It's always about the money.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:38:58 AM PST

  •  How do you square this statement with (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shrike, koNko, divineorder, GideonAB

    Obama's success?

    If anything, 2008 should've taught Democratic presidential contenders that a policy of warmongering no longer plays well in Democratic primaries.
    •  good point (0+ / 0-)

      Obama supported the Afghanistan war in 2008 and still won.

      Let us at least hope that the primaries will advantage those who seem more interesting in peaceful solutions.

      But with CFR not done yet, corporations will have too much sway

      Another shining sphere flies from Feior's hands, and you are frozen where you stand

      by GideonAB on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:56:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have to think that this is kabuki to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ekgrulez1, shrike, koNko

    put pressure on the Iranians to make a deal. Or a "free vote" to those that need to prove their warhawk bonafides without worrying about it passing.

     Overturning the President's diplomatic overtures would be a disaster for the United States, these Senators must know that so it must be optics.

  •  Because (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckvw, Crider, divineorder, 4Freedom

    Democrats have never supported war?

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:41:18 AM PST

  •  Gillibrand explained (16+ / 0-)

    Garnering huge paise from Senator McCain for her strong support for Israel, before she speaks to AIPaC. Video found in her own website linked below.

    Isn't that the dominant issue for all the Senators listed above, as much or more than war mongering? Or have the two become equivalent?

    Senator Gillibrand Speaks at 2013 AIPAC Conference

    Let us arise and go now to where dogs do it Over the Hill where they keep the earthquakes ... It's time ~~ LF

    by cosmic debris on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:41:28 AM PST

  •  Call them out. Now (11+ / 0-)

    They are signing onto these AIPAC-backed bills, because they think no one cares about foreign policy, and that they can get away with it. There need to be petitions, ads etc. to call them out for warmongerning. If this bill passed, it would be on the right track to unravel the Iran agreement - and that would threaten war.

  •  coincidentally, 5 of those on that list (5+ / 0-)

    are among the top 20 recipients of money from pro-Israel groups (that list includes members of both parties).

    I'll see if open secrets can filter just Democrats....

    L'enfer, c'est les autres....Jean-Paul Sartre

    by Keith930 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:43:17 AM PST

  •  Is this an error? (6+ / 0-)
    The real danger is that a veto-proof majority emerge opposing sanctions, undercutting the administration's diplomacy efforts. We expect that sort of thing from Republicans, of course, but we shouldn't abide it from our Democrats. So use this tool to find out where your own senators stand and send them a message on how you feel about this issue.
    Did you mean a veto-proof majority supporting sanctions?

    Yeah, send a message on this. Time to bring Iran back into the fold, sanctions would be totally misguided.

  •  Disappointed to see Gillibrand there. (5+ / 0-)

    I had hoped she might be a future presidential candidate, but not if that's how she thinks.

    Too bad. She could have been a contender.

    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:45:29 AM PST

  •  Don't need any tools. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alice Olson

    Already got Schumer and Gillibrand.

  •  sanctions aren't war (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sky Net

    The status quo with Iran isn't war.

  •  I'm not sure support for sanctions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    is the same as being pro-war. Still, it's the wrong position to take.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:47:45 AM PST

  •  DSCC. (9+ / 0-)

    Tell the DSCC that you won't pony up a dime if they support warmongers.

    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

    Phone (202) 224-2447

    Fax (202) 969-0354

    For general information email info@dscc.org

    For media inquiries email press@dscc.org

    For campaign employment opportunities email grassroots@dscc.org

    For internship opportunities email grassroots@dscc.org

    For technical/Web issues email webmaster@dscc.org

    "There is just one way to save yourself, and that's to get together and work and fight for everybody." ---Woody Guthrie (quoted by Jim Hightower in The Progressive Populist April 1, 2012, p3)

    by CitizenJoe on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:48:10 AM PST

  •  So, we know this is not good-cop-bad-cop Kabuki... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skymutt

    ...of some kind? Serious question. It seems Obama can rely on being on thin ice in pretty much every arena so who knows? At this point it's all just positioning, words, nothing has actually happened...

  •  Countries do not have permanent friends (7+ / 0-)

    just permanent interests. We are facing a collapse of many friendships in the mid-east. Turkey is useless. Egypt is a mess. Saudi Arabia is basically untrustworthy, basically bankrolling Al Qaeda and spreading jihadist beliefs throughout the Muslim world. Iraq is really a mess with a Sunni/shiite civil war raging - again. Only Israel is a US ally, and even they are playing their own game, often at our expense. So, when you look around the mid-east, Iran offers huge potential as a US ally. Iran is arguably as much a democracy as any country in the region. It is strategically placed, has great intelligence assets, a well-organized military, and can be relied upon to live up to agreements as long as it knows that the other side is doing so. Our interests are logically pushing us in the direction of a major rapprochement with Iran if we can but seize the opportunity. However, I suspect that the USA will continue to get mid-east politics wrong as they have done so consistently since their first forays into the region after WW1.

    Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

    by Anne Elk on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:51:15 AM PST

    •  In the past it was mostly oil (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, atana

      that determined who was our friends and allies in the region. Now with us creating more of our own energy and these countries becoming more and more unstable, maybe, just MAYBE, we might start something right in the region if the short term deal with Iran is a success. If we get past this Senate hurdle and the deal's an overall success, who knows what will follow?

  •  Sen. Gillibrand... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    divineorder

    I want to support you.

    Do not make me run for president myself, damn it.

    I have no desire to traipse through Iowa and New Hampshire when it's 13 degrees and snowing.

    But I swear I'll do it!

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:51:46 AM PST

  •  Given that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizenx

    my senators are Cruz and Cornyn, I don't think I really have any hope of convincing them.

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:52:05 AM PST

  •  ... (0+ / 0-)

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:52:12 AM PST

  •  Disappointing to see Booker (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, divineorder, GleninCA

    on that list.  I'm thinking that guy could really be president someday.

  •  Duh (4+ / 0-)

    New York and New Jersey have two of the highest concentrations (by percentage) of Jews in the U.S.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:53:24 AM PST

  •  Not shocking. All are bigtime friends of Israel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes

    types, so we shouldn't be shocked at the hardline stance towards Iran. It is the establishment position in both parties and so therefore its tough for me to call them out on this one.

  •  Booker is not a suprise (8+ / 0-)

    I would have been suprised if he wasn't on that list, can't understand why ANYONE would be excited to get him elected to the senate.

    •  Agreed. (7+ / 0-)

      Booker has always been conservative even when he was Mayor.  IMO, Booker looks out for Booker.  Even in his senate campaign, he had to back off his support for cutting Social Security.

      I certainly think he has presidential ambitions.  Perhaps he thinks he can have it both ways.  His likely opposition is Hillary whose support the Iraq War was the probable cause of her loosing the nomination.  She certainly will not be interested in making war in the Middle East a campaign issue.  If both enter the primary fray, I predict silence on the issue.

      I would add all NJ and NY senators get a lot of money from Wall Street.  Many high flying Wall Street people live in NJ. That's why the average income is so high.

      •  I don't think that Booker... (0+ / 0-)

        is going to try and challenge Hillary in 2016. He would get stomped in the primary if so. I think he wants to try and return to NJ in a few years and run for governor however, and use that as a spring board to the White House in 2024 (assuming the Dems control the White House for 8 years).

        I'm disappointed to see him on this list. He probably feels that he doesn't have much to lose by being on this list however as he can later just brush it off as "we needed to keep the pressure on Iran, etc."

        Wendy Davis for TX Governor, 2014!

        by GleninCA on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 04:57:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He may not challenge Hillary, (0+ / 0-)

          if she keeps polling well.  He refused to challenge Christie.

          But if she doesn't run?  Then he'll run.  In any case, he has several paths. He could angle for VP or gov as you say.   I don't expect he will be in the Senate long.

          Both of his primary opponents are far more progressive (Congressmen Holt and Pallone). I think they entered the primary to get state wide recognition.    

  •  We all know why (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, Ezekiel in Exile

    This is why I no longer give money to the DSCC or any other national democratic organization.

    Note these are the same DINOs who support torture and mass surveillance.

    Chuck Schumer is a disgusting excuse for a democrat, especially.  I'd rather vote republican.

  •  Even though I'm temporarily exiled ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana

    to the Corn Desert of Illinois, My home state will always be California.

    DiFi would vote with the war mongering faction and BB would be against them. Good for Barbara and a pox on DiFi.

  •  Atlantic Seaboard (0+ / 0-)

    Appetite for war there is stronger than in New England or West Coast, so you get otherwise left leaning Senators voting the wrong way.

    For those of you who prefer Bartlett to Obama, re-watch the West Wing. For those who prefer Clinton, re-watch old news videos.

    by Ptolemy on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:57:43 AM PST

  •  reelection (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694

    They only want to win reelections. in America unless you take a stand for maintaining America's empire status you will not get reelected on a national level.

    Empire status requires on going wars. Americans love their on going wars as long as they are short quick victories. long drawn out wars are not popular in America.

    Empires have their own self destruction built within their own culture of arrogance and ignorance.

    What is amazing Americans will borrow trillions of dollars to hire mercenaries to help fight in their wars. a sign of true empire status when mercenaries are hired to fight their on going wars.

  •  as the democratic party divides... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Failure in Shear, greenbell

    these defining moments make for good information on the core beliefs of future (next election) candidates

  •  Maybe this is the Senate carrying the stick (0+ / 0-)

    while the admin. offers the carrot to Iran.
    I'm in favor of negotiations, but the Senate Dems' action may be choreographed with the WH.

    As long as  it doesn't go too far and blow up the negotiations.

    It's still proof that the neocons are not dead yet.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:59:04 AM PST

    •  I tend towards it being choreography with the WH (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lying eyes, David54

      but even if it isn't I do think it strengthens Obama's hand to show that he has hardliners in his own party that would love for negotiations to fail.

       Obama would like to show Iran that there is no better deal around the corner, which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see Hilary come out with a nuanced but aggressive statement on these new set of sanctions.

      •  There is no way forward with negotiations (0+ / 0-)

        with Iran.

        They have been playing the same game of chicken with the US that North Korea has for the last few decades.....If you think this is a serious negotiation you have already lost.  

        This is just another example of Iran trying to play the gullible in the U.S.

        The only way forward is to collapse the current Iranian government and hope/help a slightly less psychopathic government is formed.

        •  There are big differences between N. Korea and (0+ / 0-)

          Iran. NK's personality cult and insularity has persisted partly because that was preferred by China. That has allowed a "hothouse" for the strange "psychosis of NK leadership to persist.

          The Iranians aren't psychos. They want to be a major economic and political power in the world. They're a much larger country, and their population is more advanced than most in that area.
          They calculate the cost/benefit of their actions, and for a long time have come down on the side of not bending to the sanctions. Reread your comment and tell me why they shouldn't distrust the West?
          The country is still run by the Supreme Leader, and the ruling council, but there are more or less moderate factions. Right now, at least superficially, the moderate faction is being given its head.
          The sanctions have hurt the Iranians, it's hurt the Iranian economy, and delayed their economic ambitions. It's threatened the regime through disgruntlement at home.
          Nobody in the WH is being hoodwinked. They know all this.
          Even if the negotiations are superficial, if they don't pan out, it at least gives us a better argument in the international community that we tried and they aren't good faith players.
          It's possible the Iranian regime will never fail, but given the right prescription of carrot and stick it may evolve, and the moderates may gain ground. Our efforts at negotiation may also stimulate more internal pressure on the regime to accept negotiation and change.
          They also know there is a chance the sanctions regime could fall apart. There are even bankers in this country who surreptitiously try to find ways around the sanctions.
          They also know our military can't handle a war with Iran, which would make the Iraq and Afghan war together look like a croquet match, at this time.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:22:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I imagine the President knows this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            "Nobody in the WH is being hoodwinked. They know all this."

            I however was aiming my comments at those in this community who appear oblivious to that fact.

            I trust Obama more or less, however many of the lefts supporters seem oblivious to the fact that Iran and North Korea like, and are good at, playing that card.

            "The Iranians aren't psychos" neither are the North Koreans

            "but there are more or less moderate factions" And we saw the level of their power a few years ago. Their supporters were openly killed in the streets.  In short Iranian moderates have no power. If they do not fall in line, they are killed simple as that.

            Yours
            "It's possible the Iranian regime will never fail, but given the right prescription of carrot and stick it may evolve"

            Mine
            ""It's impossible the Iranian regime will ever evolve , but given the right prescription the stick it may fall"

            Thats a difference of opinion, but id say mine is back up by the historical reality that there has been no significant evolution of Iranian politics since their modern re-founding.

            This is different than what I would suggest. but

            "They also know our military can't handle a war with Iran, which would make the Iraq and Afghan war together look like a croquet match, at this time."

            But in all honestly we could just assassinate the leadership and watch the collapse.  There is no situation in Iran which could be less beneficial to U.S. Interests.

            Id recommend we just collapse their economy but targeted assignations could do the job.

            "Reread your comment and tell me why they shouldn't distrust the West?"

            I also do not give a shit why they "distrust" us. They are hostile, they will always be hostile, and they have intention to act hostile so we should destroy their government.

          •  Decent assessment (0+ / 0-)

            however, Iran / Iraq was was a draw and US / Iraq was no contest. Aftermath was a bit of a different story in Iraq, but US is not an efficient governing body. US still hasn't quite figured that part out yet.

            •  You can't make any kind of sensible comparison (0+ / 0-)

              regarding Iran/Iraq and our easy victory (toppling Saddam) in Iraq and what would be our capability now.

              On paper we could obliterate Iran with cruise missiles and nuclear warheads, but we can't do that, for fairly obvious international political reasons.  
              We could sustain a ground war in Iran if we re-instituted the draft, with no deferments.

              However, who would come to Iran's defense? What would Russia, China, Pakistan do?
              What would happen in Africa if we started another major war?

              Also, we have to consider Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria into the equation.

              It seems to have escaped everyone's attention that these "talks" with Iran have taken place subsequent to and in the context of the ongoing tragedy in Syria.

              Do people think that's just a coincidence?

              We don't really know what is the substance of the discussions. What we know is the tip of the iceberg. That's as it should be, at this stage.

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 05:19:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We could easily destroy them (0+ / 0-)

                with an air force only action.  There is no need to put American boots on the ground.

                Simply destroy the organized military with air strikes and ANYTHING that comes from the chaos will be better for the US than the current regime.

                Not that I recommend this but we could also sustain a ground war in Iran even with the volunteer army we have.

                The "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were pathetically implemented on a strategic level.

                I hesitate to armchair quarterback this but compare WWII where we  rounded up and "removed" the ex German forces and those two "wars" where we treated our enemies with "kid gloves". The long term outcomes are starkly different.

                The brutality of the old wars resulted in relatively tranquil post war periods. I believe if presented with the option our military commanders could design an effort which would decimate the Iranian forces and require a minimal ongoing  policing effort. No nuclear weapons required, just not handicapping them to the extreme that they have been during Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

        •  How does one propose doing THAT? (0+ / 0-)
          The only way forward is to collapse the current Iranian government and hope/help a slightly less psychopathic government is formed.
          This couldn't have been better said by Dick Cheney himself.
          •  Covert actions and STRONG ecnomic sanctions. (0+ / 0-)

            Exactly what this group of democratic senators is pushing for?

            Just exactly what Obama has been pushing for and saying the last few years?

            I trust Obama has his reasons for entering negotiations now, he is a smart man. I do have some hesitation, he has show to be gullible with his negotiations with republicans.

            Just as I trust that the "Peace at all costs" crowd ignores the fact that the Iranian's would butcher you and every one you've ever known given the slightest opportunity and lack of consequences.

  •  These "dems" need (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bananapouch1

    to lose my name/email - I no longer support any of these people.
    If "we" don't say No Now and loudly--"dems" like this will keep mowing the rest of us down...If we stay silent--it works (or they will use it) as an endorsement of a violent, warring position.
    No. Period.

  •  I'm surprised not to see Dick Durbin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Assaf, JSW from WA, Ezekiel in Exile

    on the list, since he has real strong ties to the Israel lobbyists and uber supporters.

    This has just got to be rankling John Kerry alot.  First he gets sabotaged by Bibi before he arrives to negotiate over the Palestinian issues and now he gets backstabbed by his own on the Iran issues.  

    Obama should come right out and make strong speech to counter this movement... and I mean strong.  Not holding my breath on that however.

  •  The foreign policy TITANS.....I'm guessing Kerry (0+ / 0-)

    isn't worried about this.

  •  Thanks Markos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wintergreen8694, Lost and Found

    Email sent to Senator Warner. I'm glad to see that Senator Kaine isn't on that list.

    Is there correlation between AIPAC contributions and this list of Senators?

  •  Third Way creeps slowly back into the MIC picture (6+ / 0-)
    Bob Menendez (NJ)
    Chuck Schumer (NY)
    Ben Cardin (MD)
    Bob Casey (PA)
    Chris Coons (DE)
    Dick Blumenthal (CT)
    Mark Begich (AK)
    Mark Pryor (AR)
    Mary Landrieu (LA)
    Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
    Mark Warner (VA)
    Kay Hagan (NC)
    Joe Donnelly (IN)
    Cory Booker (NJ)
    Joe Manchin (WV)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:10:27 AM PST

  •  Any explanation from Booker or Gillibrand? (0+ / 0-)

    Both seem to be active on social media, and Gillibrand has posted here before.

  •  I'm going to be charitable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet

    and say that the Democrats in the Senate are trying to play bad cop.  If the Iranians don't keep up their end, then the Senate is showing that it is ready to act.  It's not like it's binding since the president won't sign it right now.  And I would not be surprised if any override failed.

    "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

    by anonevent on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:12:57 AM PST

    •  I don't buy that reasoning for one reason (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, Meteor Blades, demreplib33

      There is no need for Dem Senators to play the bad cop when the GOP is more than willing to not just play the bad cop but be an actual bad cop.

      No, I think this is simply pandering to their ignorant or bigoted constituents.  I doubt they'd actually vote to pass new sanctions and force the President to veto it though as that would piss off a very large portion of their actual base.  That would go double if they actually managed to damage or kill the nuke negotiations.

      This is just posturing to ward themselves to a potential right wing attack without having to do anything to actually hurt the President's foreign policy.  I think it is gutless but not totally unexpected.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:01:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whoa Gilibrand... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found

    Both my senators... sad.

  •  The Unspeakable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, atana

    We all need to read this book by William Douglass.

    It is on one level, about why JFK was assassinated, by the military industrial complex, for moving in a direction towards peace and away from war.  

    On another level it is about the darkness at the heart of the American heart.  The term "unspeakable" was coined by Thomas Merton in 1961 and 2.  

    By that time, he had been moved to write letters to anyone he could find an address for who might have some influence in Washington, Hollywood, the Vatican, in letters, in entertainment, etc.  

    He saw the unspeakable as a place at the center of things that was void of content, where delusions and lies had real substance and could substitute for truth for the sake of convenience, wealth and power.  He saw that Kennedy was in an absurdly impossible position as President and that he could be pushed by the military into nuclear war.  Indeed,
    the CIA and the Joint Chiefs and other players tried repeatedly to force Kennedy into hugely embarrassing circumstances that would make him  have to intitiate a war.

    What was not known until fairly recently was that Kennedy initiated correspondence with Khruschev asking for his help in partnership to turn the tide away from the generals and for world peace.  Khruschev and Kennedy wrote many letters back and forth and had discussions through intermediaries, all of which was kept top secret because the generals were already really angry with the President.  

    But this correspondence caused the Cuban Missile Crisis to be averted, thus saving the world from a virtually certain nuclear was, and it led to the first Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and arms reduction talks that have continued off and on ever since.  

    Kennedy saw war up close and personal in the South Pacific during WWII, and came very close to death himself.  He saw the deaths of others and he saw the insanity of the way the military has to conduct itself in wartime.  

    He started out his Congressional career by campaigning for the proposition that we must work to end all war.  But he quickly realized that a more pragmatic approach was to be a cold warrior par excellence.  

    Kennedy made a journey which brought him face to face with the unspeakable.  Merton predicted in 1962 that if he moved towards peace as President that he would embrace his true greatness, but that he would almost certainly be assassinated as a result.  

    I think this book is possibly the most important book out there on Kennedy, although I haven't read all of them.  I think that, because the author addresses the larger issue of the military industrial complex and its role in forcing the President and as much of Congress as it can into embracing war, it takes us on the journey that Kennedy took.  

    I would think that for Democratic legislators, operating as if this history did not exist is a very dangerous game.  

    The war urge that is powerfully present in those most eager to ruthlessly wield power over others no matter the cost, has to be resisted or it will absolutely dominate everything.  

    Perhaps we should send copies of this book to these people, with a companion copy of Profiles in Courage.  

    But then, how do you make people go on this journey to discover what must be discovered?

    How do you make people have the courage to face up to it?

    The example of JFK contains that question because he knew what he was facing and he saw the urgency in it and went out and prepared to withdraw troops from Vietnam and made the American University Speech anyway.  

    It isn't easy for people in politics to face the prospect of having to give their lives for what they believe in.  

    When you see people taking a more convenient line, you may be seeing courage fail.  The tragedy of 1963 continues in each such failure.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:19:38 AM PST

    •  Yes, Johnson was willing to give the generals (0+ / 0-)

      their big war -- but he held out against their desire to use nuclear weapons against Hanoi. In the end, though, he was so disgusted he just threw in the towel.

      The generals were absolutely determined to have a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. They were sure we could "win" it, in the sense that in the aftermath the US could reemerge as the sole superpower in the world. Eisenhower had control over them, but Kennedy and Johnson did not.

      Now that we are the sole superpower in the world, the generals still want big wars, but are being fed a diet of drone attacks, lily pads, and Information Dominance. They are really, really hungry and they do not like all this talk of peace with Iran.

    •  The author is James, not William, Douglass... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and his book states unequivocably that the CIA planned and carried out the assassination of JFK.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:28:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point on the author (0+ / 0-)

        Yes he points the finger at the CIA, but also the Joint Chiefs and big business as well.  

        Merton's concept goes beyond specific culprits or trigger men to the darker aspect of our culture that is still with us, still acts on the President whether it is a compliant person like Bush or one more aware of the challenge of putting one foot in front of the other like Obama.  

        It acts on us.  I know a lot of grass roots Democrats who one can feel are afraid to confront the unspeakable at the local level.  A lot of people put their heads down after JFK, MLK, RFK and the others.  

        One can hope that there are more and more Kennedy's out there who will have the courage as the outlines of the future we face come more into view.

        hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

        by Stuart Heady on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 04:53:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is the true weakness of our party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lost and Found, Pablo Bocanegra

    There is NO high-profile issue -- none -- on which 1, 5, 10 or 15 Republicans would join Democrats.

    We could announce a cure for cancer that needs a Senate vote for release -- and it would break along party lines.

    Yet here, and on other things, handfuls of 'our side' join with those toxic yahoos.

    Kind of discouraging to say the least.

  •  WTF. that bullshit KG. (0+ / 0-)

    My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

    by JLFinch on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:23:16 AM PST

  •  Why is it so surprising (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, demreplib33

    to see Gillibrand vote the same way as Schumer?  They are close political allies from the same state.  Remember when Gillibrand used to be one of the more conservative Democrats in the House?  She's clearly an opportunist who is for sale to the highest bidder.

    I'm mainly surprised to not see Heitkamp, Tester, or Levin on the list, if we're going through the full list of squishy Dems.  I would include McCaskill too, but she's been pretty tight with the President since day one.

    Most of these guys are just creating theater for their next round of political ads.

  •  If you choose to use the canned response form... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Flyswatterbanjo

    ...read it carefully, and change the tense of one of the words.

    Can't easily raise that page to point it out specifically, just make sure you read the canned letter carefully...

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:30:24 AM PST

  •  aipac.org (0+ / 0-)

    It's 1 of 4 in the slideshow graphic, front and center on the website.

    Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 (S. 1881)

    There is no existence without doubt.

    by Mark Lippman on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:33:43 AM PST

  •  Gillibrand (0+ / 0-)

    Is generally a reliable D Senator, but if Chuck Schumer asked her (told her?) to join him in supporting almost any Israeli interests over the President / American interests, she would obviously be driven by her loyalty to the guy that got her the Senate gig to begin with.

  •  Uh....no. (3+ / 0-)
    Someone might want to remind these two of what Hillary learned that year.
    The very activists that supported Obama supposed because of Hillary's Iraq war vote are now fawning over her for 2016. Why? Because she was a cheerleader for the beloved Obama, who turned hard right on foreign policy once he became president.

    They won't pay a price for this vote because the Very Serious People who actually choose the candidates in our beloved democracy will make sure that whomever wins the Democratic nomination in 2016 is a warmonger beholden to the MIC wing of the party.

    Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

    by psychodrew on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:38:43 AM PST

  •  I suspect they are trying to be "bad cops" ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell

    ... in order to motivate and incentivize (I can't believe I typed that word) the other side to work with Kerry et al.

    Or that's what they will say when the terms are concluded.

    "It was the threat of sanctions that kept them at the table!"

  •  There will be no peaceful solution to Syria, Iraq (3+ / 0-)

    Afghanistan without integrating Iran back into world. I am very proud of what Kerry and Obama are trying to do. It is a unique chance for peace in the Middle East. Please give this a chance!

  •  New wing? (0+ / 0-)

    Hardly. Revisionist history is a bipartisan problem.

    The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

    by Jazzenterprises on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 10:42:21 AM PST

  •  War Mongers (0+ / 0-)

    It is time that the voters in our country take the power to arbitrarily interfere with other sovereign nations who have the right to their own policies so long as they do not directly threaten our own security form our self-serving politicians who routinely bow to the whims of the military-industrial complex or put foreign interests ahead of our own domestic needs.

    The lesson we should have learned in Iraq seems to have been lost as are the myriad lessons that we as a nation should have taken to heart. every time the U.S. has interfered in the affairs of sovereign Middle East it has backfired or created a new set of problems and cost our nation in blood, treasure, and credibility. After squandering a trillion plus dollars emptying the treasury in Iraq while our own roads, schools, public structures crumble, and social needs for our own people are cut our elected elite are beating the war drums and dancing to the tune of those who profit from war, oil scarcity, and an unabated arms industry that gleefully sells to both sides and America picks up the tab.  

  •  Looks like Chris Murphy's the only holdout (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustine, joe from Lowell, demreplib33

    in the Greater New York Metropolitan Area a/k/a New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

    `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

    by seanwright on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:02:58 AM PST

  •  What Hillary learned in 2001 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell
    The most interesting are Booker and Gillibrand, both harboring presidential ambitions. If anything, 2008 should've taught Democratic presidential contenders that a policy of warmongering no longer plays well in Democratic primaries. Someone might want to remind these two of what Hillary learned that year.
    Gillibrand has learned what Hillary learned in 2001. If you want to win reelection in NY you have to suck up to Israel.

    Hillary pissed off AIPAC by not demonizing Yasser Arafat, Gillibrand isn't going to do the same thing by not demonizing Iran.

    In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    by boriscleto on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:10:47 AM PST

  •  Are you afraid to say it? (3+ / 0-)

    You write that whole "serious" piece and you do not mention AIPAC once?  AIPAC.  AIPAC.  AIPAC.  See, it is not so hard...

  •  Just made sure Senator Warner heard from me (0+ / 0-)

    Regarding these irrational additional sanctions at this point. Let the diplomacy play out first before going down the road of sanctions at this point.

    Courtesy of the Weekly Standard: "Early on, we received this missive from a bright young conservative: 'I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!'"

    by Steve In DC on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 11:41:52 AM PST

  •  I think the northeastern ones (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, demreplib33

    are just too close to Wall Street, physically and figuratively.  It cuts them off from the grassroots, and then thinktankery takes over.

    Real change in this country comes predominantly from the Midwest and West.  Always has, always will.  Sorry to sound so regionalist, but I really do think the northeast is still farther into Old World elitism more than other parts of the country.  Not all the time, mind -- but just remember where Elizabeth Warren is actually originally from!

    •  And it's kids from the midwest and west and south (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allenjo

      who fill up the National Guard units for the wars these warmongers want to fight.  I mean just how many volunteers do they get from Manhattan?

      •  Plenty of people from NYC (0+ / 0-)

        serve in the armed forces.
        This is Red state nonsense that only "good old Middle 'mericans fight fight for their country."
        Sad to see this on DKOS, but not really surprised.

      •  That's going a bit far (0+ / 0-)

        There is a disproportionate share of military from the Midwest and South, but that's not a political values thing so much as a lack of economic opportunity.  I suspect quite a high proportion of those who join up from economically vibrant Manhattan are making a real political statement.  If you join up from rural Arkansas, it's quite likely that you're simply acknowledging that the military offers better pay and benefits than working at McDonalds.

        The real problem in the northeast is a legacy of machine politics interacting with elite tradition that's tough for the grassroots to crack.  From this phenomenon's western outposts in Chicago and St. Louis, all the way back to the eastern seaboard, there are barriers to involvement that are extremely tough to crack.  And yes, I do think Elizabeth Warren being from Oklahoma was one factor in helping her to crack it. People like her pave the way, and hopefully the grassroots in this part of the country will see more possibilities.  

        I'm not saying the Midwest and West are immune to this.  I'm simply saying the barriers are less entrenched, and less respected by the citizenry.

        •  It's both economic and cultural (0+ / 0-)

          Military service can be a cultural thing as can enlistment in the National Guard.  It's as much a social club in the Midwest as it is an economic need.  What I'm saying and it's a bit harsh I know but the children of upper class professionals don't join the National Guard in the same way kids from small towns in flyoverland do but it's those interests AIPAC, Wall Street etc. that are just oh so happy to send other people's kids to war.  

          At least southerners join up and go to the wars they support and military service is probably more common among some of the higher income folks down there as well.  

          But warmongering on the upper west side or in the upper class elitist suburbs from Boston to DC doesn't include military service on the preppie agenda -- that's for the rubes.

  •  Why the Surprise? (0+ / 0-)

    87% of the dems are DLC Third Way military industrial complex sellouts.  

    We keep voting for the shiny corporate polished candidates because ?"they have a chance to win".

    So we lose no matter what.  

    Stop letting the corporate owned media tell you who is cool.  

    We should have elected Kucinich, and lots more of the Progressive Caucus folks

    but we were deceived.

    6 corporation control 90% of our media.  

    Vote for the Green party and the Progressive Caucus folks.  Vote smart, don't let the GOPT or the conservative dems win.  Tell the pollsters who you want, not who you think will win.

    Then when you vote, look at the polls, if the good candidates have a real chance, vote for them, if not, vote for the lesser of evils.  

  •  I take issue with the word "new" in the (0+ / 0-)

    title.  Most of the members of both parties are war mongers, or at the very least passive cowards who do not seem to care about all the wars both large and small that we have recently been in.  They almost all vote for every outrageous military spending bill that comes up no matter how bad it is, or how how much the people in this country need that money to have a healthy society.

    So calling out the new war mongers in the D party is kind of sad and misleading.

    Having the Iraq war disaster has been great cover for the on-going disaster that is Afghanistan, and the smaller actions where we just blow children to bits with smart drones in multiple countries that we are not actually at war with.... and Obama has a kill list with nary a peep from the Ds.

    What a bunch of pathetic theater.  Not pathetic in how well it works, since it works very well, but in the lies that it spreads.  

    The U.S. and Israel are belligerent terrorist states. War crimes, large jailed populations, international law breaking, and massive propaganda are a few of the weapons used to crush any chance at peace.

    by Ipracticedissent on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:00:01 PM PST

    •  By the way, you are damn lucky you did not post (0+ / 0-)

      this before the election.  You could have been banned for it : )

      The U.S. and Israel are belligerent terrorist states. War crimes, large jailed populations, international law breaking, and massive propaganda are a few of the weapons used to crush any chance at peace.

      by Ipracticedissent on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:01:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A lot of empty posturing by pols who... (0+ / 0-)

    have a significant Jewish constituency to worry about.

    Reid won't bring it to the floor. Boehner won't even bring it to the floor. And Obama will veto it if it does somehow pass.

    Some of this looks like a cost-free way to prove you're a Friend to Israel.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:08:49 PM PST

  •  The list mentioned above (0+ / 0-)

    is comprised of mostly conservative and corporate Democrats.    The kind of Democrats that lose elections when they throw the liberal base under the bus.

  •  frustrating! (0+ / 0-)

    what in the hell is wrong with these people?

  •  You're missing something - AIPAC (0+ / 0-)

    I bet the vast majority of the 15 are on AIPAC's list of rent-a-Senators.

    This is the Zionist wing on the Democratic party, pure and simple, of which Hillary is a founding member.

    Green is more than an ad slogan. Live Green, vote Green.

    by green in brooklyn on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:27:57 PM PST

  •  (D-Israel) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GleninCA, 4Freedom

    These senators, especially Shumer, Gillibrand and Booker, are really senators from Israel. Most of the Jews I know here in NYC/metro want peace between US/Iran more than anything to do with Israel, especially because that means more peace for Israel. Or at least for Israelis.

    Israel's government and the NYC/metro Federal representatives are their own country, though the people of NYC/metro and Israel voted for them. This is an exemplary failure of small-r republicanism: the abhorrent failure of representatives to represent their constituents in the republic. And therefore a failure of small-d democracy, which the warmongering policy in this case most certainly is not.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 12:34:03 PM PST

  •  How do you spell warmongering Democrat? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allenjo

    AIPAC

  •  Very disappointed in Gilibrand. (0+ / 0-)

    At one point, I thought she might be presidential material.

    You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

    by MikePhoenix on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:24:14 PM PST

  •  Militant ethics and high standards (0+ / 0-)

    would have put Nixon in jail a generation ago.  Instead, Democrats abjured a fight they could have won even if they had lost - by simply trying and impeaching a President who had already resigned.  That lack of forgiveness whether successful or unsuccessful - that intransigent and unforgiving anti-Catholicism - that authoritarianism - might have made the Republicans think twice about creating a corporatocracy - fascism - or, now, the campaign finance state where politicians are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations that benefit from war, privatization and crony capitalism.

    We do not have statesmen in this country.  But we do have the 'daddy party' and the 'mommy party' and colluding Democratic assholes amidst unresponsive political actors.  

    If they provoke a war with Iran, they may well create a faction of leftist extremists in a new Popular Democratic Front.  

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House. ~ expatjourno

    by ezdidit on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 01:48:21 PM PST

  •  NJ (0+ / 0-)

    NJ has a large Jewish population

  •  This may not be very PC (0+ / 0-)

    But Booker and Gillibrand have large Jewish constituencies, yes? This may explain this stance.

    Catch St. Louis' progressive talk show, The Murdock Report, every Tuesday @ noon! Stream or download it: www.wgnu920am.com I do the twit thing too @SmokinJoesTruth

    by Da Rat Bastid on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 02:19:32 PM PST

  •  In most of these cases, but not all, (0+ / 0-)

    these Senators correlate with large Jewish-American constituencies. They may think such hairy-chested stances will please this constituency, but frankly most Jews I know have more balanced views.

  •  Again (0+ / 0-)

    WV should apologize to the nation for sending that grandstanding clown to Washington.

    "Idiocracy. It's not a comedy, it's a prophecy."

    by wv voice of reason on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 03:58:18 PM PST

  •  if you are looking (0+ / 0-)

    for heros or leaders when it comes to dealing with iran the congress is not the place to look.

  •  Booker is from the corporatist wing as well (0+ / 0-)

    And no he doesn't believe in peace.

  •  The new warmongering wing of the Democratic Party (0+ / 0-)

    There's nothing new about warmongering by the Democratic Party.

    "Americans have a strong devotion to afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable. They have a hard time contemplating any meaningful overhaul of the rules of their political system" -- Alec Baldwin

    by Sagebrush Bob on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 05:34:09 PM PST

  •  Nothing new about Democratic warmongering (0+ / 0-)

    Kos, are you completely ignorant of American history? The Democrat Party has always been a war party. Note that in the 20th century, American involvement in every major war of the century came under a Democratic Administration. Have you never heard of Scoop Jackson, John F. Kennedy (an extreme militarist who ran charging the Republicans with a "missile gap"), or Joe Lieberman?

    Are you unaware that bloated military budgets have been repeatedly passed unanimously by the Democrat-controlled Senate and with only a handful of opponents in the House? This country has two militarist, imperialist, corporatist parties who completely dominate politics in our oligarchic country.

    But you have repeatedly supported the Democrats. You have been an advocate for those supporting wars, imperialism and corporate control. You are part of the problem.

    Your strong pro-establishment bias makes you surprised when party hacks act just like anyone with any sense would expect. I suggest you read the People's History of the United States and other real history so you can be less of an embarassment.

  •  NEW WARMONGERING WING? (0+ / 0-)

    Half of the Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq Disaster.

    And I'm old enough to remember a little war in Vietnam owned by the entire Democratic Party.

    Next thing we'll be hearing about the "new" corporate wing of the party.

    The Democorporate faction of the party uses the Far Right as its excuse for moving further right.

    by masswaster on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:03:01 PM PST

  •  The People stopped the war with Syria. (0+ / 0-)

    We'll have to take the leadership to stop this one too.

    The Democorporate faction of the party uses the Far Right as its excuse for moving further right.

    by masswaster on Fri Jan 03, 2014 at 09:12:39 PM PST

  •  I signed the petition (0+ / 0-)

    There's a grammatical error in the boilerplate editable letter where it omits a "to".

  •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

    The Clinton faction of the Dem Party, while putting on their "Bold Progressive" lapel pins for fund-raising events, have consistently supported the right wing agenda -- anti-New Deal, pro-war. Hillary Clinton has been a solid pro-NAFTA war hawk all along.

  •  War Mongerers (0+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, both Booker and Menendez are my Senators.  I doubt they will change their minds about Iran.

    As for the comments about Hillary...she is as dishonest as they come.  One needs to remember it was her hubby, Bill, that signed in NAFTA and he ALSO abolished the Glass-Steagall Act that ushered in the 2008 disaster.  Georgie Porgie abolished the law that protected the investors...hence...the perfect 2008 financial storm.  

    Now, one can say Bill was Bill and Hillary is Hillary, however, they are two peas in a pod and have made a LOT of money doing the financial backstabbing of the American people.

    Bob is right...she needs to speak up about Iran BECAUSE if she does run for the Presidency...the PEOPLE need to know where she stands on that issue.  I am very sure she will be doing the rah rah dance to go to war with Iran.  She talks about how the Elite are doing the nasty to the American people...but she neglects to admit...she is one of the Elites!  Keep in mind she was ALL FOR THE IRAQ WAR and she was ALL FOR NAFTA!  Both disastrous for the US AND Iraq!  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

    There are far better Dem candidates for the 2016 Presidential run.  Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kucinich and a fantastic Independent Senator that could run under the Dem ticket...Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

    Hillary is just more of the same...she "misspeaks" a lot.  One must not forget the biggie she told about arriving in a war zone with her daughter and the two of them having to dodge bullets, at the airport, when they landed.  A video was shortly presented on YouTube, of that arrival, where she and her daughter walked off the plane and onto the tarmac with nary a harmless firecracker going off, being greeted by some official to welcome them both.  Both all smiles because of the warm reception they received.  Her later remark when confronted with the truth of that video...all she said was, "I misspoke".

    Notice how our definitions of words are changing?  She didn't lie...she "misspoke".  "Misspoke" is the new normal to use for lying...sounds so much less important an issue when you use "misspoke" than "lying".  Sort of like when someone has been raped but the word "molested" is used instead.  Kinda waters down the true impact of the event.  As if being "molested" is really not so bad.  The same with the using "misspoke" instead of "lying".  To "misspeak" is no biggie.

    No, the Dems need to come up with a better candidate than Hillary...if she is all they have...that says a lot about the party...and that's not much.

    •  Clinton was a dictator? (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton had plenty of help in abolishing Glass-Steagall and it was mostly from the GOP.   It was officially repealed (sections had been watered down starting in the 1960's) by the Gramm_Leach-Bliley Act--every single one of those 3 was/is a member of the GOP.  

      Whatever it seems like sometimes (like immediately after 09/11) Congress really is a separate branch and it can and does pass legislation w/out the prez telling it what to draft (or supplying a first draft) and has the power to override presidential vetoes and it has.    All that was amply demonstrated by the latest gov't shutdown.  Two similar shutdowns occurred during the Clinton administration.

      I don't like some of what Clinton did, but he surely did not do it alone, just like Obama has not done what he's done alone (except for those drone assassinations) nor have his failed efforts been only his doing.  

  •  Colorado Senators still undecided (0+ / 0-)

    Both Michael Bennet and Mark Udall responded to my emails (about diplomacy with Iran) with a generic "We'll-get-back-to-you".

  •  corporate controlled foreign policy (0+ / 0-)

    How much employment in each of those "elected representatives" is from defense contractors?    How much MIC money goes there?  

    Probably determines their views & votes, regardless of what most of their constituents might want.

    Really tired of a nation that can't manage to survive w/out waging wars that aren't even called wars and selling weapons to everyone.  

  •  Opposed to S-1881 (0+ / 0-)

    Please oppose S-1881 foolishly proposed by Sen. Menendez.
    The country does not want another war, especially since we don't seem to ever get OUT of them, nor do we get anything in return for our blood and treasury. Adding sanctions on Iran now, WITHOUT ANY NEW TORT DONE TO US by them can only be done with one goal in mind: to torpedo any chance for Peace and give sway to another round of profiteering by war mongers/ profiteers. There is just NO JUSTIFICATION for such a path
    This is a deliberate attempts at putting us on a war footing, and it is stupid in so many ways: Just as Iran seems to mollify their position, we harden ours? Why not give Peace a chance?

  •  War mongering Democrats (0+ / 0-)

    Nothing pisses me off more than WAR MONGERING Democrats being sucked into the " WAR RACKET " . WTF is wrong with you Democrats on board with this stupid Menendez plan ?

  •  Blumenthal is a Junior CT Senator (0+ / 0-)

    I'm shocked Dick, Richard Blumenthal would support this. Clearly, he's trying to "fit in" or go along to get a future favor"??..This crap has to end. I KNOW he's a good man and helps the poor and down trodden and has chased out big Insurance Corporations who harmed actual people as our Attorney General for years. He put humanity over money time and again.. He never placed money over humanity, never. I find it shocking he'd go this route..I will write and call, and push to ask him to back down.
    I called for him (phones) to get him elected.  This makes no sense, unless they know something we don't...or "think they do"?? Schumer also shocks me, but he has made some shady votes in the past if one digs.. Chuck's always been otherwise decent regarding humanity. While I don't trust Iran at all..(crazy SOB's)..
     The last thing we need is Democrats to support the GOP on anything, especially a war that they can later claim"Democrats supported, especially so many!!..If this is the case..I'll work just as hard to UN-elect him.
    No one here wants war. It only ever makes corporations wealthier, and the world hates us still from Bush's lies getting us into an expensive abusive war with Iraq.

  •  Make sure you sign the petition (0+ / 0-)

    Israel does not control our foreign policy

    Clinton/Warren 2016

    by artr2 on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 02:48:11 PM PST

  •  my Illinois Senators, Durbin and Kirk... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skyye

    Kirk is an original co-sponsor of the Menendez bill. Lost cause.

    Durbin has not publicly taken a position, AFAIK. He made some moderately supportive comments on the interim nuclear deal that were reported in local Illinois press:

    Cautious Optimism on Iran Deal

    but AFAIK Durbin has said nothing on the Menendez bill specifically. He did not sign the letter of 10 Democratic committee chairs to Reid against the Menendez bill. He's not technically a committee chair, even though he is part of the leadership, so that is a push.

    •  Do I recall (0+ / 0-)

      Durbin is the one hard fighting to place unreasonable and unnecessary new regulations on our vitamins and supplements?

      Isn't he the one who got under the covers with McCain on the food safety act that has words that could enable the FDA to regulate the private gardens we grow for food?

      To be Clear, I'm asking so if you know and I am wrong, please do correct me. It happened around 2009 I think?

      •  I called Durbin's office today (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Skyye

        just called Durbin's office. I asked the staffer who answered if Durbin has made a public statement on the Menendez bill. She said no he has not, but they have been getting a lot of calls on the issue, with an uptick in calls today, and she hopes they will have a public statement soon.

  •  Unfotunately Warner is one of my senators (0+ / 0-)

    The man is warm spit and seems not to be able to avoid any stupid idea that comes along.  He reminds me of the old sign "the beatings will continue until morale improves."  Kaine hasn't stated a position to my knowledge.

  •  This is really sad (0+ / 0-)

    They should go do the fighting and not be allowed to create more veteran, deaths, for our men and boys just because they get x amount of donations...

    Paid to send others to death when there is another option, AT least, to give full opportunity?

    Damn, we people need to take to the streets with all others not matter the party.. Because I would bet a dollar to a donuts that many think this way, despite any differences.  It's the voters of every party or point of view whose, men and women, sons and daughters etc are being maimed due to some group being paid to vote not whats right but what the payer wants.

    Why would the Jewish community not want peace after all these years, if it could be achieved. Hell we send money and arms and whatever, to support them. We don't even have money for our own veterans...

    Very discouraged by some of these names, I will stop any support for those who will risk, stopping, with full awareness, the possibility of peace. Immediately

  •  Get rid of them! (0+ / 0-)

    We need to get rid of these MF's along with the far right fringe! Sick of these people sending soldiers into harms way so that the weapons/aircraft/drone manufacturers in their states can profit and contribute to their f**king re-election campaigns.

  •  As You Requested (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belinda ridgewood

    In response to the email I sent to Senator Rubio concerning the Menendez bill I got his usual auto-reply.  "Thank you.  Please look for my response in the near future." Unless it's a issue he figures he can nail and use safely for the Presidential nomination he never sends a reply.  I doubt I'll hear from him on this issue.  

  •  Hillary has already commented... (0+ / 0-)

    As she has said before keep All options on the table and yes including bunker busters and I for  one agree with that statement. If she appears strong at the table and willing to do what ever it takes then they will understand just what is at stake. If she appears week then we have nothing. She has my vote. Iran's leaders are liars period pretty much like our own politicians. Always a grain of truth tho a small one it may be. But if any head way is to be made here we have to approach it with diplomacy as it could very well lead in another way to fighting terrorism. If we fail here we will empower that force ten fold and we will be at war period.
    Nobody trusts Iran and nobody will until they can prove themselves what other choice do we have. Are we always to be at war with Iran and the middle east. Like it or not we are now. It is a money war that costs all of us every single day and it is our very own government that is mainly responsible, meddling in there affairs with the friggen Shah. We actually owe them in this. Look back at our history with Iran and what WE did to them and why they do not trust us. Because we are democracy it makes the American people just as responsible because we elected these people in to office, at least our parents did, but it is the same and yes it sucks.  

  •  reply from Feinstein (0+ / 0-)

    In her reply to me  Senator Feinstein supported diplomatic negotiations with Iran. The critical passage seemed to be:
    "...I do not believe Congress should risk undermining the delicate negotiations underway through the imposition of further sanctions or threats of military force. "

  •  What Menendez' office sent me. (0+ / 0-)

    Menendez is one of my two Senators.  I had written to him over Christmas, warning him against sabotaging Obama's negotiations with Iran.  i received a reply, dated January 3, the substance of the reply is (emphasis added):

    Thank you for contacting me about U.S.-Iran relations.  I appreciate hearing your views on this matter and having the opportunity to respond.

    I am extremely concerned about Iran's nuclear program and the extraordinary threat it poses to the United States, our allies, and to the international community.    I believe that we must use all the tools of peaceful diplomacy at our disposition to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

    I support a two-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions.  The interim agreement reached between Iran and the international community on November 24th, 2013, is a beginning and a product of that policy.    Given Iran's history of duplicity, however, it is crucial that we demand full Iranian compliance with the interim agreement and adhere to a tight time frame to reach a final agreement with Iran.  I also believe that until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should continue to vigorously enforce existing sanctions and be ready to proceed with new sanctions should negotiations fail. I expect that any new sanctions legislation considered by the Senate will support this two-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions by providing at least a six month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran.

    It is my fervent hope that negotiations with Iran lead to a final agreement that will ensure that it cannot acquire nuclear weapons capability, in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolutions.  As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I will continue to work with my colleagues to that end.

    •  My reply from Menendez (0+ / 0-)

      Similar to the above but shorter and more opaque.

       

      Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding sanctioning Iran.  I appreciate hearing your views on this important matter and having the opportunity to respond.  

      I am extremely concerned about Iran's nuclear program and the extraordinary threat it poses to the United States, our allies, and to the international community.  I believe that we must use all the tools of peaceful diplomacy at our disposition to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability.  To address concerns about the impact of sanctions on the Iranian people, the sanctions focus primarily on transactions that may benefit Iran's nuclear program and include an exemption for the sale of food, medicine, medical devices, and agricultural commodities.

      Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Rest assured that as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to advancing stability and peace in the Middle East and will keep your views in mind.  I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.
       

      •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Portlaw

        More data points, the better.

        I was very blunt in my letter to Menendez. I wrote that if there is a war because negotiations with Iran fail after Senate shenanigans, I would hold Menendez responsible; and though a Democrat, I would then join whatever organization necessary to boot him out of office.

  •  Senators Warren & Markey are AGAINST new sanctions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smileycreek

    Hello, Kossacks!

    Senators Warren & Markey are firmly opposed to the new sanctions bill being offered by Sen. Menendez. I've just gotten off the phone with their offices (in fact, I created this account just because of the Kos e-mail that asked us to let people know where each Senator stood).

    I've been reading this site for a while now, and I must say that I've become quite impressed over time with the amount of intelligent commentary and analysis on the site and in the comments section.

    Would someone mind telling me what the "Tip Jar" is? Thanks!

    •  Thanks for reporting in! (0+ / 0-)

      The Tip Jar is the diarist's first comment in their own diary. It is either automatically generated (in which case it will just say Tip Jar without any further text, as in this case) or customized by this diarist with additional commentary.

      If you like the diary it is customary to "tip" the diarist by clicking the Recommend button on their Tip Jar. This gives the diarist mojo, which is measured on their profile page. Participating by tipping comments and recommending diaries also increases your mojo.

      Diaries that start out on the Front Page will not have a Tip Jar, as front pagers don't need any more mojo (they get paid in actual Monopoly money!). But sometimes their diaries start in the right hand column before heading to the front page, and they will then have Tip Jars, just in case you're wondering why sometimes a dairy by Kos has a tip jar and sometimes it doesn't.

      If you think a diary is good enough to be recommended to the rest of the site, click on the Recommend button at the top or bottom of the diary. The more Recommends a diary gets the more it moves up the Recommended list and the more people will see it.

      Kos, being the owner of the site has no need of mojo, since his is infinite, but it's nice to show appreciation anyway if you like the diary.

      And that's probably more than you wanted to know, but it might be useful to others as well.

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.”
      – Nelson Mandela, proof that the final form of love is forgiveness.

      by smileycreek on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 04:47:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Full Reply from Senator Michael Bennet (0+ / 0-)

    Dear "bystander,"

    Over the past decade, Iran has made steady progress toward obtaining a nuclear weapon - a prospect that we cannot allow. The International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA), an institution of the United Nations, has confirmed that Iran continues to pursue the development of a nuclear weapon, despite numerous warnings and sanctions by the international community.

    As you may know, on May 21, 2012, the Senate passed the Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012, a bill to impose tough new sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and groups that continue to do business with Iran. When this bill was considered by the Senate Banking Committee, I worked with Senator Robert Menendez on an amendment to help us track our progress in isolating Iran's energy sector by improving reporting requirements as part of a larger package of sanctions.

    We must aggressively use all of the political, diplomatic and economic tools available to us to mobilize the international community and to ensure the effectiveness of our sanctions. That said we must also work to ensure that these sanctions do not unintentionally hurt Iranian citizens. Sanctions can be an effective tactic, but they do not represent a coherent diplomatic strategy.

    In November 2013, the Obama Administration along with the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, China and the European Union began a series of diplomatic negotiations with Iran. On November 23, 2013 participating countries finalized a six-month interim agreement in an effort to slow Iran's nuclear development program in exchange for temporary relief from some sanctions while a formal agreement is established. The interim agreement requires Iran to dilute its stockpile of uranium to a level below 5% or convert the uranium to a form not suitable for further enrichment. As you may know, nuclear power plants use uranium that is enriched to 5% for fuel to generate electricity and levels 90% and higher are considered weapon-grade. In addition, Iran will be required to decrease the expansion of enrichment facilities and centrifuges, which are mechanisms used to enrich uranium. Iran must also provide IAEA inspectors with daily access to centrifuge assembly and storage facilities, uranium mills and the Arak reactor among other locations.

    In return, the countries involved in the negotiations with Iran will temporarily suspend sanctions on various items, including gold exports. The deal also ensures that no new sanctions will be enacted during the six-month interim deal if Iran complies with the agreement. The temporary lifting of sanctions is estimated to provide Iran with about $1.5 billion in revenue and about $7 billion in total relief. Currently, there is approximately $100 billion inaccessible or restricted to Iran due to international sanctions.

    I continue to support efforts to engage Iran and its people through direct diplomacy but am also cognizant of the security risks Iran poses to our allies in the region and the international community at large. I will continue to follow the negotiations closely and will keep your thoughts in mind if legislation is brought before the full Senate regarding Iran.

    I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

    For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.

    Sincerely,

    Signature

    Michael F. Bennet

  •  Iran Sanctions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Portlaw

    This is a time to allow diplomacy by the President. The sanctions now are brutal for Iran.  I don't care about Iran more than any other country, but I do expect Democrats to stand with President Obama as Secretary Kerry works toward solutions.  Acting tough does not impress Democrats. We appreciate results and we want positive results to be given a chance by President Obama.  No undermining of his efforts now.

  •  Jan. 10, 2014: Letter from Sen. M. Cantwell (WA) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Assaf

    Full text of Maria Cantwell's response.  IMO, she doesn't answer my (our) concerns.   She seems eager to support sanctions, not very eager to support negotiations.

    -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -

    Thank you for contacting me regarding United States foreign policy toward Iran.  I appreciate hearing from you about this important matter, and sincerely apologize for the delayed response.  

    On November 23, 2013, President Barack Obama announced that an interim diplomatic agreement had been reached with Iran to address the Iranian nuclear program.  This announcement is the result of negotiations between representatives of Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, commonly known as the P5+1. The United States is a member of the P5+1.  

    Under this interim agreement, Iran's government must halt several elements of its nuclear program in exchange for a temporary reduction of sanctions by the international community.  Specifically, the Iranian government must stop enriching uranium above five percent, must halt the installation of new centrifuges which are used to enrich uranium, and must suspend activities at its Arak reactor facility.  Iran has also agreed to provide International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors with more frequent access to several of its nuclear facilities, and to provide more detailed information about these facilities.  

    In exchange, the United States and the remaining P5+1  countries  have agreed to suspend several of the sanctions being applied to Iran's economy, for a period of six months.  These measures loosen restrictions on Iran's precious metal, automobile, and petrochemical sectors. The interim agreement preserves the underlying sanctions on Iran's banking and oil industries.  

    I remain very concerned about the tensions between the United States and Iran, and the Iranian regime's goal of obtaining nuclear weapons capability.  I support President Obama's efforts to work with Russia, China, and our European allies to pressure the government of Iran to end its nuclear weapons program, support for terrorist groups, and human rights abuses.  

    A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to not only the United States, but to our European and Middle Eastern allies, especially Israel.  To help address these security threats, I agreed to co-sponsor Senate Resolution 65 which supports full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran, and reaffirms the United States' commitment to helping our ally Israel.  Senate Resolution 65 explicitly notes that it is not an authorization for the use of force. This resolution has received overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate with 65 co-sponsors.  Senate Resolution 65 was agreed to unanimously in the Senate on May 22, 2013.  

    I also supported the Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Human Rights Act of 2012 (H.R. 1905) which was signed into law by President Obama on August 10, 2012.  This bill reinforces the underlying Iran Sanctions Act by strengthening existing economic penalties aimed at persuading Iran to change its conduct and end its defiance of the international community.  

    This law includes a provision that I authored requiring the President to produce a report to Congress every 180 days that describes the movements of both crude oil and refined petroleum products to and from Iran.  The President's report will help expose violators of U.S. and other international sanctions  who  are assisting Iran in developing upstream oil and gas production capacity, upgrading Iran's refineries, converting chemical plants to petroleum refineries, or constructing new refineries.  My provision would also require the publication of the identities of companies engaging in financial schemes known as "swaps" with the Iranian regime.  While not currently a sanctioned activity, this information may expose additional loopholes that Congress could act on to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.  

    Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter.  Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as I continue to monitor this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.  

     Sincerely,
     Maria Cantwell
     United States Senator

     For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at
     http://cantwell.senate.gov/...  
     

    The opposite of pro is con. So what's the opposite of progress?

    by DSPS owl on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 04:40:58 PM PST

  •  reply from Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catilinus

    Here is an email reply I received today from my senator Maria Cantwell, who has previously called herself undeclared on the Menendez bill.

    Dear sweet lisa,

    Thank you for contacting me regarding United States foreign policy toward Iran.  I appreciate hearing from you about this important matter, and sincerely apologize for the delayed response.

    On November 23, 2013, President Barack Obama announced that an interim diplomatic agreement had been reached with Iran to address the Iranian nuclear program.  This announcement is the result of negotiations between representatives of Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, commonly known as the P5+1. The United States is a member of the P5+1.  

    Under this interim agreement, Iran's government must halt several elements of its nuclear program in exchange for a temporary reduction of sanctions by the international community.  Specifically, the Iranian government must stop enriching uranium above five percent, must halt the installation of new centrifuges which are used to enrich uranium, and must suspend activities at its Arak reactor facility.  Iran has also agreed to provide International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors with more frequent access to several of its nuclear facilities, and to provide more detailed information about these facilities.  

    In exchange, the United States and the remaining P5+1 countries have agreed to suspend several of the sanctions being applied to Iran's economy, for a period of six months.  These measures loosen restrictions on Iran's precious metal, automobile, and petrochemical sectors. The interim agreement preserves the underlying sanctions on Iran's banking and oil industries.

    I remain very concerned about the tensions between the United States and Iran, and the Iranian regime's goal of obtaining nuclear weapons capability.  I support President Obama's efforts to work with Russia, China, and our European allies to pressure the government of Iran to end its nuclear weapons program, support for terrorist groups, and human rights abuses.

    A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to not only the United States, but to our European and Middle Eastern allies, especially Israel.  To help address these security threats, I agreed to co-sponsor Senate Resolution 65 which supports full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran, and reaffirms the United States' commitment to helping our ally Israel.  Senate Resolution 65 explicitly notes that it is not an authorization for the use of force. This resolution has received overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate with 65 co-sponsors.  Senate Resolution 65 was agreed to unanimously in the Senate on May 22, 2013.  

    I also supported the Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Human Rights Act of 2012 (H.R. 1905) which was signed into law by President Obama on August 10, 2012.  This bill reinforces the underlying Iran Sanctions Act by strengthening existing economic penalties aimed at persuading Iran to change its conduct and end its defiance of the international community.  

    This law includes a provision that I authored requiring the President to produce a report to Congress every 180 days that describes the movements of both crude oil and refined petroleum products to and from Iran.  The President's report will help expose violators of U.S. and other international sanctions who are assisting Iran in developing upstream oil and gas production capacity, upgrading Iran's refineries, converting chemical plants to petroleum refineries, or constructing new refineries.  My provision would also require the publication of the identities of companies engaging in financial schemes known as "swaps" with the Iranian regime.  While not currently a sanctioned activity, this information may expose additional loopholes that Congress could act on to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.

    Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter.  Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as I continue to monitor this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.  

    Sincerely,
    Maria Cantwell
    United States Senator

  •  Iran Petition (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catilinus, DSPS owl

    Here's the message I sent to my two senators (Wisconsin):

    Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process. Something that planners ignore when they create policies like this is that they result in suffering and death to others. The people affected are human beings, just as we are. These lofty schemes supposedly result in a desired outcome, when they actually make matters worse. Such as in Iraq after the Clinton-imposed sanctions. Over 1,000,000 children died as a result, and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said was "worth the price."

    It is worth mentioning that schemes like this tend to be the result of lobbyist pressure and money. It would be worthwhile to investigate the money interests behind this scheme. I trust you will find this worthy of your efforts. Please let me know what you find out.

  •  comments from Senator Jeffrey A. Merkley (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley
    Dear Eric,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Iran sanctions bill proposed by Senator Menendez (D-NJ). I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to share my perspective.

    At this time I do not support additional sanctions legislation because I share the views of many foreign policy experts that it could undermine the ongoing negotiations and weaken our multinational coalition, ultimately making less likely our goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  

    I believe that a nuclear-armed Iran is the single biggest threat to American security, and that our top national security goal must be to block all Iranian efforts to build a nuclear weapon. The single best way to achieve complete dismantlement of this program, including ending construction of a heavy-water reactor at Arak and ending enhanced enrichment of uranium, is an airtight negotiated agreement, accompanied by protocols that provide extensive, intensive, and continuous verification of Iran's compliance with the agreement. Sanctions on Iran are critical to the success of this effort.  

    The comprehensive set of sanctions already in place brought Iran to the table and I have strongly advocated for such sanctions.  Should Iran renege on agreements or should negotiations fail, we must aggressively reinforce multinational sanctions. Thus, I will continue to monitor the situation closely and stand prepared to double down on our sanctions effort should the current negotiations fail to generate the extensive and verifiable agreement needed to end the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

    I appreciate you sharing your thoughts regarding Iran with me. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as circumstances develop.

    All my best,

    Jeffrey A. Merkley
    United States Senator

  •  Iran and the Menendez Bill (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    One response to the letter we sent, from Marco Rubio of FL:

    Excerpted:

    "Thank you for taking the time to contact me to express your concerns regarding the United States' policy toward Iran.

    For more than three decades, the Iranian regime has gained an international reputation for its dismal human rights record and its state sponsorship of terrorism.  Equally disturbing is the regime's defiance of the international community in its pursuit of a nuclear program considered to be a precursor for acquiring nuclear weapons.  

    For these reasons, I have supported several measures to ensure the United States and our allies place crippling sanctions on Iran including the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act (S.1881). This bipartisan legislation proposes prospective sanctions on Iran should the regime violate the interim Joint Plan of Action agreed to in Geneva or should Iran fail to reach a final agreement. The proposed legislation requires further reduction in purchases of Iranian petroleum and applies additional penalties to strategic elements of the Iranian economy.

    Simultaneously, it gives the Administration continued flexibility and up to one year from the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear agreement to pursue a diplomatic track resulting in a complete and verifiable termination of Iran's illicit nuclear program. In addition to this bill, I plan to continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to find additional ways to ensure that Iran's human rights violation and its sponsorship of terrorism are highlighted and the elements of the Iranian regime responsible are penalized. "

  •  It's not about Hillary yet, but the party of FDR. (0+ / 0-)

    You had me at "warmongering."  If this is what they're up to, I'm fed up.  I'm not a purist, BUT we have 40 -- FORTY -- military bases surrounding Iran.

    That these stupid, ignorance-pandering, warmongering Democrats think Iran can get anything past these FORTY military bases is stupid, selfish, zionist-pandering, prejudice-pandering blue doggery of the lowest leg-pissing order of disrespect for this president that could ever come out of the harems of corporate whoredom.

    These toe-jam licking lapdogs must be primaried and voted out ASAP. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the blocker of all progressive bench candidates, must go, too.

    The selling out of the party of FDR has to end with progressive pressure before the next primary. It must continue LATER to press upon HRC.

Meteor Blades, Superskepticalman, buffalo soldier, Sylv, DeminNewJ, fcvaguy, Phoenix Woman, copymark, native, artr2, nicolemm, Shockwave, windwardguy46, emelyn, Creosote, JLFinch, 88kathy, ehavenot, farmerhunt, artebella, sidnora, Texknight, TexDem, Eyesbright, RebeccaG, 2dot, Bendra, Major Kong, mungley, KayCeSF, poemworld, Sybil Liberty, Longwing, vcmvo2, bloomer 101, 3goldens, LakeSuperior, schumann, Brooke In Seattle, Laurence Lewis, boofdah, LABobsterofAnaheim, sunbro, jtg, peacestpete, mightymouse, Dolphin99, Sanuk, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, koNko, AoT, blueoasis, StrayCat, philipmerrill, 4Freedom, gpoutney, Libby Shaw, DSPS owl, JVolvo, onionjim, markthshark, BeerNotWar, NonnyO, BeninSC, Mary Mike, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, Save Ohio Now, jayden, cyncynical, jnhobbs, OIL GUY, leonard145b, on the cusp, TomP, GideonAB, fb, hkorens, mconvente, amyzex, Robert Naiman, OleHippieChick, Thomas Twinnings, bill warnick, bythesea, Greyhound, Americans for a Republican Irrelevancy, Lujane, pamelabrown, CIndyCasella, JBL55, divineorder, bsmechanic, gharlane, maryabein, Jyrki, winkk, Flyswatterbanjo, mahakali overdrive, Dragon5616, catilinus, Railfan, gramofsam1, kjoftherock, VickiL, Lost and Found, mjbleo, renzo capetti, DrTerwilliker, ericlewis0, soaglow, verdeo, annieli, allenjo, spooks51, slowbutsure, jm214, BlueJessamine, mikejay611, Alice Olson, vjcalaska, Drokkenian, wintergreen8694, enhydra lutris, erichiro, Joe Jackson, cailloux, ratcityreprobate, stlsophos, leftykook, allergywoman, Frank In WA, Mathazar, wolf advocate, RockyJ, StonyB, Gay CA Democrat, angry marmot, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, This old man, reginahny, doroma, jes2, tytalus, DSWright, Glen The Plumber, George3, ShoshannaD, Portlaw, Heavy Mettle, GoGoGoEverton, Lily O Lady, koosah, tryhardyes, minnec, unfangus, northerntier, Icicle68, greenbell, Fishtroller01, saxoman1, TheChocolateChips, RUNDOWN, Dodgerdog1, eagleray, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, Capt Crunch, Bartskid1, Kit RMP, jorcas, Lia Whirlwind, VPofKarma, Skyye, ptressel, theBreeze, libertyjusticemercy, Miiiisha, RabbleON, CJB2012, exinferno

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site