"The White House is seething, and they want everyone to know it."

[babylonsister]

Bob Menendez is a Problem

by BooMan
Thu Jan 9th, 2014 at 10:53:57 PM EST


Among elected officials from New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie is not the biggest asshole. That designation belongs to Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is actively undermining the administration's foreign policy and making war much more likely with Iran. The White House is seething, and they want everyone to know it.

The White House on Thursday challenged a group of senators to admit they are working to push the country toward war with Iran, upping the tension between the administration and Senate advocates of tough new sanctions amid nuclear negotiations.

"If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed."

The "certain members" the White House is referring to are led by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who is pushing legislation, backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that would tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime despite the ongoing negotiations.

Closing some lanes on the George Washington Bridge endangered some people's lives, but trying to push the United States into a shooting war with Iran could endanger millions of lives. Bob Menendez needs to be challenged in a primary and he needs to be defeated. The senators who are backing him on this need a major shot across the bow to warn them off their idiocy.

Here are their names: Cory Booker of New Jersey, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Chris Coons of Delaware, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mark Warner of Virginia, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Mark Begich of Alaska.

more...

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2014/1/9/225357/2447

[MannyGoldstein]

1. For the most part, isn't that the Ready For Hillary! crowd?

Might be inconvenient for Kerry to score a foreign-policy victory after Hillary's failure thereof.

[karynnj]

8. I fail to see the overlap and it is better for Hillary if John Kerry succeeds

If people are convinced that Obama's foreign policy is a failure, they may be more likely to include Hillary in the blame.

At this point, the Clinton people are playing it both ways - taking credit that the outreach started under Clinton and the sanctions were helpful --- but being completely quiet on whether they back the interim agreement.

[L0oniX]

37. +1

[ConservativeDemocrat]

50. Only in the endless expanse of your colorful imagination, Manny

Or, to put it more plainly... "NO".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[BlueCaliDem]

78. + 1 eom

[rhett o rick]

94. Your arguments are so.......I dont know.............brief. nm

[warrant46]

52. Its mainly Sen Chuck Scumer

The point man for this adventure

[lsewpershad]

56. Mr President

time for your veto pen if this passes.

[warrant46]

57. +1 N/T

[11 Bravo]

63. I gaze in boundless wonder at the propensity of some DUers to take ...

ANY FUCKING POST AT DU and turn it into a dig at Hillary Clinton.

Pssst. Hillary wore white after Labor Day in 1997. To the barricades!

[dionysus]

70. dude, you could post a thread about breakfast cereal and someone will make a bitter, anti hillary

Last edited Fri Jan 10, 2014, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

post...

[11 Bravo]

73. Sad, but true. Perhaps someday I will cease to be astonished by this dogshit showing up on ...

a "Democratic" message board. Over and over and over.

[rhett o rick]

95. And all the arguments for Ms. Clinton look like your post. No substance, only whining. nm

[11 Bravo]

120. Your definition of whining is so ... I don't know ... self-serving.

We get it. Any negative comment you make in reference to a Democrat is a well thought out, highly-principled and examplary example of public discourse. Remarks with which you disagree are "whining".
The only other individual of whom I am aware that holds such a high opinion of themself is Ann Romney.

[Sheepshank]

121. +1 so apt

it made me laugh.....in a sick ironic sort of way.

[rhett o rick]

122. Well I fear you will get your way. You will get your Clinton-Sachs and your TPP.

Wall Street will rejoice and the NSA will continue violating the Constitution. You will get 8 more years of the status quo that watches the middle class sink into poverty. Why some Democrats side with the 1% I can't imagine. Maybe it's wealth envy. But I sense that you will rationalize that since Ms. Clinton-Sachs calls herself a Democrat that all is well, because all Democrats are goodness, even those in the Lieberman Wing whose principles match the Nixon Republicans. If a Republican calls him/herself a Democrat, bingo-bango the centrists (?) will worship them. I hear that Zell Miller is coming back to the Democratic fold to hopefully run with Ms. Clinton-Sachs.

[11 Bravo]

123. Hillary is not my candidate, nor was she in 2008.

I'm just tired of the knee-jerk, hipper-than-thou crowd furiously competing for the title of "Most Righteous Lefty" as they flock to a Democratic message board to pile on a possible Democratic nominee.

[rhett o rick]

124. I see it as we are in war.A war for some of our lives literally. No time for Marques of Queensberry

niceties. I see the nomination of Clinton-Sachs as a death blow to the middle class. Call me names if you get off on that, but we can not go on with the status quo.

[11 Bravo]

125. I didn't call you anything. I was responding to someone else and you felt compelled ...

to interject yourself. However, if you feel that my description applies personally, that's between you and your conscience.

[blkmusclmachine]

107. Booker et al, Third Way al the way, bay-bee

[valerief]

116. They look like the usual leg-spreaders. nt

[Demeter]

2. The White House Has nobody but themselves to blame

Even Jimmy Carter had more political smarts than this crew.

[babylonsister]

4. So blame this agression on the WH,

when they're trying to use diplomatic measures v. more war? Got it.

[randome]

5. Where the hell does that come from?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[BumRushDaShow]

7. It's typical ODS. nt

[geek tragedy]

12. ODSer who wants Obama impeached. nt

[stonecutter357]

18. FOX?

[Andy823]

32. Amazing, isn't it

The same people are always around to lay the blame on the president and the WH, no matter how insane that might be. Yet they say the DON'T hate the president!

[SidDithers]

40. Extreme ODS...

getting hard to tell the far left from the far right anymore.

Sid

[BlueCaliDem]

79. ^^^This!^^^ eom

[mikekohr]

81. What does ODSer stand for?

[Marie Marie]

87. ODS - Obama Derangement Syndrome

[mikekohr]

89. Thanks. I've seen a lot of that here. I did not know it had a clinical name.

That's good though. Now that its identified perhaps science can cure them and the fruit loops, dipshit crazy, Tea Baggers at the same time.

[MadashellLynn]

90. "Obama

derangement syndrome"... The condition of going absolutely insane whenever possible about the evils of our President most often because he is guilty of being President while Black. Although sometimes it's just the case of him not being as steely eyed or liberal enough when it's me who's mad at him.

[Hekate]

104. Obama Derangment Syndrome

Seems to be incurable, sadly. Crops up in the oddest places.

[bjobotts]

100. Just look for the members of the Money Party. Diff left and right is clear

We have solutions to most all of our problems but the "Money" Party people always stand in the way of solutions...left and right....but left and right have not changed and there is a big difference but the Money Party claims members from both parties.. Solutions are easy when greed and profit are removed from the equasion.

[joshcryer]

108. They're not far left, they're far right.

They are in disguise. Their arguments, their sources, they are all from the right.

Better Believe It.

[Drunken Irishman]

118. Bingo.

[Arkana]

14. The hell are you talking about?

How is this the White House's fault?

[philosslayer]

15. Wow, really?

Sure you're in the right place?

[karynnj]

16. Who are you referring to and why?

What I see is that Obama, in his second term, is changing the course of US foreign policy - something everyone on the left called for for decades. Would you prefer the neocon actions continue?

THe reason this is tough is that there are vested interests involved - especially AIPAC on Iran. Senators have been told for 3 decades that Iran is an evil country and we have had no real contact with it. That provides a background which makes them very sensitive to AIPAC and others pushing them on this issue. In addition, they have taken a sneaky approach arguing that passing this bill that ramps up sanctions if negotiations fail HELPS diplomacy. This is what Netanyahu, who is NOT in the negotiations says. Kerry, who IS in the negotiations has asked they not do it because it reduces the small amount of trust there is. Note that the hardliners in Iran are doing harmful things in parallel. Bizarrely, these Senators who could harm the negotiations and the hardliners in Iran are BOTH working against negotiations because both fear change.

I think Kerry (and Biden and Obama) need to reach some of these Democrats and peel them away from this unhelpful legislation. In the first term, similar unhelpful resolutions came up, but Kerry (sometimes with Lugar's help) was able to disarm them by writing a competing resolution that did not harm administration policy. Now, there is no one in the Senate doing that. It may be that the administration will work with Johnson, chair of the banking committee to write something that the Democrats on this bill could vote for that would not harm the negotiations.

As I have said before, I regret every dollar and every hour spent phone banking and canvasing for the mediocre, unappealing now senior senator from NJ. Oddly, I helped the first campaign (where he could have lost to Kean JR) because of emails of support from Senator Kerry. It was respect for Kerry that made me ignore how lame Menendez was and his loss would have been the loss of a seat the Democrats should have retained. (He only became Senator because he was appointed by Corzine when Corzine became governor.) Since then my respect for Kerry has only increased, while my opinion of Menendez is very low. I hope he is primaryed.

[DLnyc]

28. Good post

Good post.

I would add that Schumer seems to be much more interested in raising lots of cash and working political power levers than in representing the wishes of his (generally very liberal) constituents, just as AIPAC is more interested in amassing money and power than in actually representing the best interests of Israel (which would be a much safer place today and in the future without AIPAC's warmongering).

My guess is Schumer leaned on Menendez, who I agree is a fairly weak individual. Schumer's motivation, as far as I can see, appears to be grandstanding for his big donor base.

You make a good point that the conservative vested interests in both the US and Iran (and I would add Israel) are naturally addicted to the status quo; their greatest fear often is an outbreak of peace.

[BlueMTexpat]

112. Both your comment and Karynnj's are good, IMO.

Keep up the good work!

[mountain grammy]

51. Agree, well said.

[Maedhros]

83. While I applaud the President's restraint with respect to military action in Iran,

it takes a great stretch of the imagination to believe that Obama is "changing the course of U.S. Foreign Policy."

For example, Obama's build-up in Africa is direct continuation of the same policies of the last 30 years:



http://www.thenation.com/article/176045/us-militarys-pivot-africa

Likewise with his use of drone bombing - the technology is new, the policy is the same.

[karynnj]

85. Change usually starts small - and engaging Iran is a good start nt

[Maedhros]

91. Agreed - which is why Democrats need to be vocal with their support for diplomatic solutions.

If Obama can end this country's self-defeating obsession with demonizing Iran, he will have accomplished a major feat.

I guess the real question is: can he stare down AIPAC?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Carter let the Shah in. He never shook hands like Obama was able to.

Carter was in total a fine President, but his crew had lots of their own political weaknesses.

Obama is making progress on Iran and the warmongers are making a huge mess. They must be stopped.

[BlueMTexpat]

114. It's too easy to blame Carter for letting the Shah into the US.

There is plenty of blame to go around for that one, mostly from the traditional GOP suspects and their allies. They were every bit as powerful - if not more so - than AIPAC and its allies today.

For some interesting background, see http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_01-03/dauherty_shah/dauherty_shah.html

From the link:

When the shah left Iran on 16 January 1979, it was expected that he would quickly seek asylum in America, the nation that had been his strongest supporter and stalwart friend. Even Khomeini had "expressed no objections" to the shah’s exile in the United States at this time. To this end Sunnylands, the sprawling Palms Springs estate of Walter Annenberg, was offered and readied as a place of haven for his royal friend. But the shah "proved to be as indecisive in exile as he had been in power, and this presented a disagreeable problem for the United States government." Without consulting with the Americans, the shah first made a quick one-week stopover in Cairo at the invitation of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and then flew on to the household of another monarch, King Hassan II of Morocco, for an indefinite stay. To Brzezinski, this "pause" in his peregrinations "proved to be disastrous," and "generated an issue where none should have existed." As February rolled along the shah’s invitation remained valid, but the shah preferred to remain as Hassan’s guest.

But just two weeks after his arrival in Rabat, circumstances reversed for the shah. If he had been loitering in the Near East region hoping that there would be a reversal of fortunes in Iran which would result in an opportunity (or call) to return to the Peacock Throne, he was destined for disappointment. Chances were dimming that the Provisional Government of Iran (PGOI) would collapse; nor had Khomeini’s support among the masses of Iranians waned. And, in a case of rather unfortunate timing, revolutionary militants stormed the United States embassy in Tehran on 14 February, holding the mission personnel hostage for several hours and generating fear for the safety of the remaining Americans in Iran. The final blow for the former monarch landed when King Hassan decided he had had sufficient time with the depressed and dispirited shah; he asked his guest to leave. The shah now sent word to Washington that he was ready to accept the U.S. government’s invitation.

and

During the ensuing months, the Carter administration worked to construct at least a stable, if not immediately productive, relationship with the new revolutionary regime in Iran. As a practical matter, for the health of this relationship the greater the American distance from the shah, the better, and vice versa. ... renewed pressures on President Carter to admit him were openly and unrelentingly applied by a handful of powerful people inside and outside of the government.

Particularly intense were National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, banking magnate David Rockefeller, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the esteemed elder statesman John J. McCloy, a coterie which Brzezinski labeled "influential friends of the shah." In their collective opinion, the admission of the shah, whenever it was to occur, was "a matter of both principle and tactics." ...

... While understanding of and grateful for the past benefits to the United States which flowed from the shah’s friendship, senior administration foreign policy officials — the president, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and Undersecretary of State David Newsom, among others — balanced the shah’s wishes against the hope that relations with the new government of Iran would improve given sufficient time and came down on the side of the promoting the political ties to the PGOI. They continued to hold firm against the shah’s admission.

There is much, much more at the link. Very few sources and fewer "experts" have taken the time to explain this chaotic period in the detail it deserves or even to note that there had been a previous but short-lived takeover at the US Embassy in Tehran earlier in 1979.

[Tansy_Gold]

27. C'mon home, hon. n/t

[lastlib]

30. and stop playing with the computer, the grownups need to use it.

[Coyotl]

43. Just another drive-by insult without substance.

I have the URL for the Freeper site if you want to cross-post this.

[sharp_stick]

46. You're not even trying anymore

and without the usual unintentional comedy that your posts normally provide they just become boring.

[TheKentuckian]

58. I don't get this sentiment, this seems to be one of the really right things the White House is doing

Why would Obama be on blast for trying to move the ball forward on turning down the heat in this area?

This administration gets a lot wrong and often seems overly influenced by the forces of entropy and avarice but not on this. Here it is doing what I think is much more in line with the long term well being of the American people and world peace.

This response is like the administration is doing something so obviously stupid and counterproductive that there is no reason to explain what is being done that is inappropriate because it can be seen from space with the naked eye but it seems almost the polar opposite to me.

[TwilightGardener]

60. You seem bitter.

[dionysus]

71. you win the "Bitter Post that Doesn't Make Sense" of the day award!

[geek tragedy]

77. not so fast

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4312518

[dionysus]

80. ok, i rescind the award and give it to them...

[awoke_in_2003]

84. Why?

Because they tried to open a dialog with Iran rather then bombing the holy hell out of them?

[lostincalifornia]

103. Are you upset because the Administration got us out of Iraq, and is doing the same with Afghanistan?

Gee, if I remember correctly I think it was Obama's watch where they got bin Laden. Hmmmm. It was this administration along with the secretary of state who is getting Syria to get rid of their chemical weapons. I guess you are upset about that too.

I can only conclude that You do not know what you are talking about.

Is the President to blame because he was skeptical
about the Afghanistan and Iraq mission? That is what upset Gates in his book. Gates resented the President because he wanted to understand what the mission was, and wasn't fully aboard. To me that is the best compliment that could be given.

As far as these Senators trying to undercut the President and the Secretary of State, screw them. Waiting 6 months to see if progress can be made is NOT unreasonable, and the President did speak with them, especially Menendez, and asked him to give the negotiations a chance, but Menendez would not listen.

This is the garbage that this president has had to put up with. Not only the extremists from the right, but the so-called democrats who are pushing us into war. This was the same mindset that voted for the IWR, and I have no doubt for for the War Powers Act.

This IS NOT OBAMA'S fault, but nice try

[blkmusclmachine]

105. But, it pays to ACT DUMB and INEFFECTIVE.

[dionysus]

119. your bitter tears are nectar to my soul. nt

[BlueMTexpat]

111. "Even" Jimmy Carter?

Wow - just wow.

[CherokeeDem]

3. The DLC is alive....

I don't understand these senators, unless they are all beholding to Israeli lobbies or just love to see our troops murdered for the wrong reasons. I'm a believer in a strong military, in case we need them, but we don't always need them. We certainly don't need to take military action when diplomacy is still an option.

[spanone]

6. wtf?

[tom_kelly]

9. It looks to be mainly a coalition from the Northeast n/t

[okaawhatever]

54. Yes, that and the Democrati Senators in tough red state races like Hagan, Landrieu, Begich and Pryor

They're basically being forced to back this if they want to win reelection.

[Blue_In_AK]

93. Begich's form letter to me on this

was all about how we can't have a nuclear-armed Iran, but I suspect his real motivation has something to do with an oil glut and the price of Alaska's oil dropping, which wouldn't be good for Alaska's economy (or his campaign funding). I did let him know I thought he was way off base.

[Hotler]

10. "backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,"

If Israel want a war with Iran then let them fire the first shot. Let them send their people in to battle. let them pay for it all by their selves without our tax payer dollars.

[marble falls]

11. ... and let them use their nuclear devices when it heads south? We need to use what moderation....

we have, as little as it is, with Israel.

[Andy823]

36. I agree

This is just plain insanity, and those democrats that are pushing this need to smarten up or find a new job!

[Hotler]

59. Tar and feathers.....n/t

[Coyotl]

44. This sounds like a good money siphon, take a bunch of donations from AIPAC supporters

for doing something in Congress that is going nowhere anyway.

[Arkana]

13. With the notable exception of a couple of them, every one of those Blue Dog pricks

are backstabbers and their names don't surprise me at all.

Schumer especially. He takes so much money from AIPAC I'm surprised he's not listed as (D-Tel Aviv).

[A Simple Game]

17. As far as I am concerned, Shumer's support for Israel over the US has reached the point of being

treasonous. Now he has Gillibrand going along with him.

Signed,
A not always proud New Yorker.

[eggplant]

26. +1

Shumer isn't a surprise, but Gillibrand? Time to make some phonecalls, I think.

[BlueStreak]

29. Well, she does need the same votes from NY City that Schumer needs.

But talk about the tail wagging the dog, the US population is 2% Jewish, and even in New York, it is only 9%. But obviously they have a lot more influence than 9%.

[lastlib]

31. $$$$........

(jus' sayin'.......)

[karynnj]

55. It is NOT American Jews behind this -- it is AIPAC, a right wing group that has some very rich

people behind it. J Street has opinions more similar to the NYC Jews and they are petitioning to STOP this insanity and are supporting Obama and Kerry.

Note that over 75% of American Jews have voted for the Democrat in every Presidential race this century - in spite of AIPAC and Netanyahu (especially in 2012).

Blaming American Jews is not fair. By the way, I called Booker and Menendez' offices - my cell has a NJ area code. The staffer, very professional and nice at Menendez's office when I said I called because I knew AIPAC would be generating calls and - as someone who had phone banked and canvased for Menendez - I wanted him to hear from the other side. He said they have far more calls against the resolution. He also said - in a hurt voice - that some were calling Menendez a "war monger" reminding me he voted against the IWR --- which is, of course, irrelevant. But, what this means is that Gillibrand might be getting more calls against rather than for as well and that MIGHT be a reason for NYers to call her.

[BlueStreak]

64. I agree the problem is the Israeli State and their rich proxies here

However, one of the threats to anybody representing states in the NY area is that if you don't play ball with AIPAC, they will turn most of that Jewish population against you. You must admit that many in the Jewish community are on a hair trigger. They respond to the "A" word (anti-semitic) the same way African Americans respond to the "N" word. I'm not blaming them. There are good historical reasons for both. But AIPAC is able to exploit this.

[karynnj]

66. I AM Jewish and I lived in the NYC area for nearly 4 decades!

This is NOT true. Most Jews are NOT one issue voters and they are among the most liberal people in the country.

Ever since 911, the Republicans have claimed that one thing or the other would cause them to get the Jewish vote. It has not happened. A HIGHER percent of Jews vote Democratic than the other people in the NYC area. (In fact, there were times when the overlap of people active in the local Democratic party and the people I knew from synagogue was amazingly high. )

I have no idea where you are from, but in the reform/reconstructionist/conservative Jewhish circles I have been in AIPAC is not all that powerful.

[Cha]

74. I know.. I was surprised at Gillibrand. I thought she

would be smarter somehow.

[Agony]

82. I take back the "kinda like" I said about her

and today I got a letter from her supporting the TPP, after going after repugs for killing UI, she supports policy exporting actual jobs? WTF?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

47. I'm. very disappointed to see our Senators on the list.

I'm usually very glad to have them representing me.

[Fla Dem]

49. It's become very evident in the past few years that Israel's goals are not necessarily good

for the USA. And yet we have legislators working against the best interests of the US to gain favor with and contributions from Israeli groups.

[cascadiance]

68. Schumer also is notorious for leading efforts to push H-1B Visa expansion all of the time too!

... as was Clinton as a New York Senator as well. Why is it that New York pols want to screw the American tech workers here... H-1B is NOT an immigration program and doesn't belong in any "immigration" bills and mainly serves rich corporatists too! Streamline currently backlogged and bogged down processes for REAL immigration to here that allows new residents to be REAL citizens with rights and responsibilities of such to help build up the working classes here again.

I hope New York voters can be more demanding in the future that their senators don't screw us here too. Must be the money games of Citizen's United are really plaguing your elections.

[geek tragedy]

75. what's worse, Schumer actually doesn't care about Israel. it's all pandering nt

[zeemike]

20. AIPAC is not the only one that wants us to fight a war against Iran.

The military industrial complex would love it...they would get to use thousands of their expensive weapons and have to make more, and make more money from it...anothe trillion dollar war would make them so happy.

[lastlib]

33. Don't forget the PNACers.........

(treasonous bastards! . . )

[BlueStreak]

42. Is there a difference?

I think it is important to separate the Jewish religion from the state of Israel. These are two different things.The state of Israel is in the hands of right-wingers, and really always has been since the 7-day war. It is only a question of how far right. In all cases, they are teammates with those in the PNAC club.

When GHWB Talked about the "New World Order," he wasn't talking about you and me. He was talking about AIPAC/PNAC/Carlysle/SHell/Halliburton and company

[cascadiance]

69. We should tell Elizabeth Warren to pull Mark Pryor from her fundraising letters unless he backs down

I can buy pushing to help Al Franken and Jeane Shaheen, but Pryor winds up too many times on the wrong side of things. We should find a good primary challenger for him instead of supporting him.

[karynnj]

117. This ignores that saving ANY seat is worth it as it can affect who controls the Senate

That means who sets the agenda and who chairs all the committees. Many veteran s have spoken of how much a difference that makes. Think back to 2005 and 2006 when we controlled nothing. There may have been some "victories" celebrated here, but they were defeating new bad things the Republican majorities wanted to do. Though losing battles to move forward is hard, barely winning against efforts to move backward is worse.

I remember having to think of this when Howard Dean and John Kerry (among others) fought for every Democrat with any chance to win. Many I knew disagreed with Kerry and were pretty far to his left, but I know everyone here was excited when in Nov 2006, we got 51 Senators. That made a difference even though some were pretty blue dog.

[sharp_stick]

19. I've let Blumenthal know what I think

of this. I was kind of surprised by him on this one, I never thought of him as an AIPAC puppet.

[ctsnowman]

24. I've had my doubts about him.

Murphy on the other hand has really shined.

Peace.

[blackspade]

22. Fucking idiots....

Obama is doing great with the Iranian nuclear issue and these assholes are trying to fuck it up.
Maybe they could set their sights on DoD fraud and drone strikes instead?

Asshats.

[ProgressSaves]

23. I've really, really went above and beyond trying to defend Democrats for some stupid shit lately.

I can do that when the issue is not of that much importance, but this undermining of diplomacy is just so goddamn tragic that it's too frustrating to positively spin.

Sometimes, putting politics before policy is what you gotta do... but on an issue of WAR or PEACE... you best choose the path to peace.

[ctsnowman]

25. Veto time.

[L0oniX]

34. "backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee"

That's all I need to know.

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. knr!

[QuestForSense]

38. These 50 senators might be treasonous idiots...

but they know a war is in their own be$t intere$t$ and that of their benefactors.

[madrchsod]

39. you`ll take that aipac money over the president and the will of the people

true americans everyone one of you.

be sure to meet with every family who will have a loved one killed in your war.

[FairWinds]

41. Israel also pushed the U.S. toward war . .

with Iraq. Read what Col Karen Kwiatkowski has to say about that.
The Neo-cons as well as many in the military and Congress see
their role as carrying out Israeli foreign policy objectives.

[Larkspur]

45. I just called my 2 senators, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, about this and TPP

I asked that Blumental remove his name as co-sponsor of Menendez's bill and asked both to give peace and President Obama a chance. There will be plenty of time to add new sanctions if the talks fail if Iran causes them to.

I also asked them to oppose Fast Track for TPP. The Senate should never cede its duty to review treaties of any type to the President. I also asked them to oppose TPP unless there are provisions to protect labor, our environment and our democracy.

[lunasun]

48. Thank you I was not aware of this , I will call reps of mine to give peace a chance

wtf

[mountain grammy]

53. Thanks for this post which somehow missed the "news" cycle.

Is it too much to goddam ask that Americans be represented here and not the militant, Israeli right wing?

[CFLDem]

61. There won't be any wars with Iran anytime soon.

If it didn't happen under shrub, it just ain't happening.

[PassingFair]

62. Remember, Hillary has no problem "obliterating them". nt

[CFLDem]

67. Really? A Clinton getting us into a major war?

Puhleeze...

[1000words]

65. It's not fun when something you don't want is shoved down your throat, is it?

"Seething," indeed.

[El_Johns]

72. K&R

[proverbialwisdom]

76. K&R

[alfredo]

86. Could this be Obama playing good cop to the Senate's bad cop?

A little FUD might help keep Iran's mind focused.

[DeSwiss]

92. The do a$ they're told.

- It's a$ $imple a$ that.

K&R

[Ken Burch]

96. Unfortunately, as an Alaskan I can guess why Mark Begich would be a hawk on Iran.

We have massive war machine installations in Anchorage and Fairbanks, on which thousands of jobs in the areas depend. Begich probably thinks he can get credit for saving the jobs(and votes in what's likely to be a very close re-election race)by beating the war drums(since another war makes base closures less likely).

Not defending the guy...just getting inside his head on this one.

[ReRe]

97. This is one issue I stand with the WH...

What was that trouble that Menendez was in, or purported to be in, a couple years ago? Looked like it was lights-out for him politically, anyway? Seems like ever since then, he has moved drastically to the right. If it passes both houses and gets to PO's desk, will PO veto it? THAT is the question. All I know is this country is in no mood for another effing war. Why is it Israel expects us to fight it's wars for them? After all, we give them all that foreign aid so they can protect themselves.

[merrily]

98. Menendez was closely tied to the possibly the most corrupt mayor in the history

of New Jersey--and those who know the history of corruption in New Jersey know that subject line is going some. Menendez testified for Mayor Musto before Menendez testified against Mayor Musto--and I would not be surprised if Menendez testified against Musto the second time because Menendez saw his own shot at making his political bones.

I would not trust Menendez.

[SCVDem]

99. I guess we have taken care of

Our hungry
Our homeless
Our Veterans
Our unemployed
Our crumbling infrastructure
Our poisoned water
Our income inequality
and on and on.....

These asshats can't stand up to the GOP/TP but they want to intervene halfway around the world.

ON WHOSE DIME?

[Nevernose]

101. This seems like kabuki theater to me

Play everyone simultaneously to keep them happy, or at least provide political coverage, and the outcome is predetermined.

[SCVDem]

102. Don't forget to bring back the draft!

Equal opportunity for the 1%ers to get blown up!

No deferments for anything!

[blkmusclmachine]

106. Here's the White House "seething" ~>

[TomClash]

109. +1,000,000

[Demo_Chris]

113. The White House TOTALLY doesn't want another war, but those damn meddling kids...

Right? Isn't that what we are being asked to swallow here?

I am thinking back over American history as best I can, I am no historian so I have that stacked against me, but I cannot recall even a single instance of a united Senate -- let alone a handful of rogue Senators -- forcing a President into a war he did not want. The idea seems positively ludicrous.

And in this case we can add to that a war that the American people have made it clear they do not want, and with a government so divided they cannot even agree that we should take care of our own starving children.

[CanonRay]

115. Gillibrand, Booker, and Blumenthal really surprise me

The rest are the usual Blue Dog specimens of the Max Baucus ilk. This shit makes me lose faith in my party.