-
You helped stop a war against Iran. The Menendez sanctions
bill would have torpedoed the President’s negotiations, and nearly had a
veto-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. But Daily Kos community members
sent 142,661 emails to their senators, turned the tide and got enough Democrats to back off.
-
You got Obama to drop Social Security cuts. As part of a larger team effort with coalition partners, over 240,000 of you worked for months to save Social Security and stop a chained CPI with emails and petitions. On Thursday, the White House announced that chained CPI will not be in the President's budget proposal—scoring a huge victory against the austerity crowd.
-
You saved public wifi in Kansas. After reading it in a Daily Kos Recommended email, over
11,000 of you shared a community diary on Facebook that explained how
the Kansas legislature was about to block cities from offering free
public Internet. You made that story go viral, and within three days the bill was dead. Boom.
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label S 1881. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S 1881. Show all posts
23 February 2014
OH WHAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH JUST BY CLICKING ON DAILY KOS E MAILS 23FEB14
JUST some of the results in February from clicking on Daily Kos e mails......
08 February 2014
Breakthrough on Iran & How Obama Won the War on Iran Sanctions 7&3FEB14
TENS of thousands of regular Americans came together to demand the US Senate give negotiations a chance and not impose new sanctions on Iran. Bold Progressives from across the country demanded we give peace a chance, and finally, we can claim victory with the announcement S 1881 will not be brought to the senate floor for a vote. From MoveOn.org
–Anna, Ilya, Maria, Alejandro, and the rest of the team
Sources:
Something pretty amazing happened last night: One of the most influential groups pushing new sanctions on Iran
announced that they're giving up for now on a vote for new sanctions—a move which should provide space for
President Obama to continue pursuing diplomacy without being undermined by hawks in Congress.1
How'd it happen? The insider National Journal cited MoveOn and a broader "resurgent progressive movement"
and quoted two Democratic Senate aides saying our grassroots activism was instrumental in the outcome.2
Check out this image of how all of us together—eight million MoveOn members, partners like Berim.org
and Just Foreign Policy using MoveOn petitions, members of Congress like Sen. Chris Murphy, and other
allies like Win Without War, JStreet, and others—poured on pressure inside and won this round. And then share it with everyone you know, so they see how progressives
are on the march:
This was anything but inevitable. As recently as a month ago, there was strong momentum in the
Senate for a sanctions bill, as Democratic senators from Kirsten Gillibrand to Richard Blumenthal bucked Obama and signed
on.3
Since then, one Democratic co-sponsor after another has said they don't support a vote while negotiations continue. Republicans
like Rand Paul and Jeff Flake have come out against the sanctions bill. And now this attempt to increase sanctions and undermine
diplomacy is at least temporarily on ice.
All of us should be proud that our voices were heard and helped stop what could've been yet another rush to war.
Now it'll be on all of us to stay vigilant and continue to create the political space for President Obama to pursue diplomacy.
Thanks for all you do.
–Anna, Ilya, Maria, Alejandro, and the rest of the team
P.S. Our work to support diplomacy, not war, with Iran is ongoing.
Will you chip in?
https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/nowarwithiran.html?id=89839-17549061-PxUvtBx&t=3
https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/nowarwithiran.html?id=89839-17549061-PxUvtBx&t=3
Sources:
1. "When AIPAC throws in the towel,"
MSNBC, February 7, 2014
http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=296716&id=89839-17549061-PxUvtBx&t=4
http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=296716&id=89839-17549061-PxUvtBx&t=4
2. "How Obama Won the War on Iran Sanctions,"
National Journal, February 2, 2014
3. "Iran sanctions push garners momentum in US Senate,"
The Times of Israel, January 10, 2014
How Obama Won the War on Iran Sanctions
A month ago, the president was on the outs—even among Democrats. Today, he’s quelled critics and getting his chance to make negotiations work.
Even the sponsor of the sanctions bill,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., is
noncommittal about whether he wants it to pass.(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The push for new sanctions on Iran has stalled. The
Democrats who bucked President Obama to back the sanctions bill are
backpedaling mightily—no longer even pretending they're pushing Harry
Reid to hold a vote on the measure. And while there's still plenty of
chest-pounding and posturing, the debate's end result seems clear: The
Senate will wait, at least so long as the negotiations move in the right
direction.
That's a full flip from just more than a month ago. Before the December recess, the Senate's pro-sanctions faction was surging. Senators—including Democrats who are typically Obama loyalists—were agreeing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that the nuclear negotiations with Iran bordered on capitulation.
So how did Obama—a supposedly feckless president when it comes to handling Congress—turn the tide?
Obama's in-person, all-hands-on-deck advocacy campaign with the Senate appears to have advanced his cause, but it's not that simple.
The president
combined tangible developments abroad with fervent support from the
Left, and used it to win out over a fracturing Israel lobby. In the
process, he won—at least for now—a foreign policy victory just as his
critics were insisting Obama's age of influence was over.
"It's a combination of one side not doing that much and the other side doing a lot. The AIPAC guys have not been calling us and usually we would be hearing from them," a Democratic Senate aide said. AIPAC is shorthand for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's best-known pro-Israel lobby group.
Obama started by reaching out to Congress in their house and his: He sent envoys, including Secretary of State John Kerry, to Capitol Hill, and he invited key players to a White House meeting to make a case that independent Sen. Angus King of Maine labeled "incredibly powerful."
But outreach on Iran is nothing new. What is different this time is that, unlike with past rounds of sanctions against Iran where the interplay has been more theoretical, the Islamic republic is actually at the negotiating table, at least going through the motions of entertaining the dismantling of its nuclear-weapons capabilities. Tremendous skepticism remains that the talks will ultimately work—including from inside the administration—but the ongoing talks at least give concerned senators an alternative.
And then there was the resurgent progressive movement that capitalized on a war-weary public to push Democrats in Obama's direction. MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and other liberal media outlets have mobilized against Democrats who supported sanctions, accusing them of undermining Obama with warmongering and asking, "Where's the antiwar Left?"
Finally, Obama was the beneficiary of weakened opposition. The Israel lobby has succeeded in influencing Iran policy for decades, but it's currently in a state of upheaval. AIPAC has not been beating down doors canvassing Capitol Hill in a concerted campaign as it has in the past, and J Street—AIPAC's younger, rising counterweight—is making the case against sanctions.
"The bottom line is that more and more members want to give the administration the space they are asking for to try to negotiate a deal with Iran. If it doesn't work they'll begin to ratchet up the sanctions more," a former senior Democratic Senate aide said. "I believe the administration now has the space they are looking for."
Another Senate aide agreed that outside forces are making a difference.
"The president's base has gone all-in with his party, cashed in every chit possible, applied every possible pressure point on Democrats, used messaging and rhetoric that fires up the liberal base, and activated grass roots to target Democrats and make them afraid of this bill from the left," said the aide. "Unfortunately it's turned it partisan, and we'll see if Republicans will take the next step."
The impact of Democrats growing gun-shy could have implications for the GOP agenda. The House passed additional sanctions against Iran in July, before the current negotiations were announced. House GOP leaders have since flirted with bringing up the pending Senate sanctions bill, but have been concerned about losing Democrats and thus losing any impact by turning an intended bipartisan message partisan. At the same time, House Republican leaders have struggled to convince senior Democrats to push forward a less controversial, bipartisan nonbinding resolution on Iran.
Matthew Duss, a policy analyst with the liberal Center for American Progress, argued that the outreach from liberal groups has made an impact by tapping into war fatigue.
"Without question, there has been great work done by progressive organizations, communicating with policymakers and legislators some of the problems with the sanctions bill and urging the activists and grassroots community and constituents to call their own elected members," he said. "You've seen the resurrection of elements of the Iraq War Coalition on the left who remember that we got ourselves into a huge mess in the Middle East are sending this message: 'Let's not do that again.' That's a very strong motivating factor."
Democratic operatives tracking the issue said that as Democrats have had time to digest the legislation, the details have given them cold feet. The bill, for example, does more than simply impose additional sanctions if Iran breaks its agreement. It also calls for authorizing military force to support Israel in any military conflict against Iran.
"The recognition that the language was so broadly written that passage of the legislation could in fact lead to the possibility of a confrontation with Iran is what tipped the scales," the former senior Democratic Senate aide said. "That language was written pretty strongly. The more folks delved into it, the more concerned they became that it puts the U.S. in a very aggressive posture. Everyone wants to do everything they can to support Israel, but more folks are beginning to look inwards again and are very war-weary."
Of the 59 cosponsors on the legislation, 16 are Democrats. But it is hard to find any Democratic cosponsor who is eager to talk about the bill these days. Many dodged questions, while others such as Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Christopher Coons of Delaware, and Ben Cardin of Maryland are frank that they are not pushing for a vote.
Manchin said he intended the bill to send a message of support for Israel and underscore a goal of upending Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions. But he said that a vote could actually cost his sponsorship of the bill.
"I never intended for that bill to come to a vote and debate," he said. "If they start moving it forward I might need to start making a decision about whether I stay on the bill or not."
Even Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, who is the lead Democrat sponsoring sanctions legislation, is noncommittal about whether he wants to see his bill become law.
When asked if it was still his goal to push for a vote on the bill, he sidestepped.
"It is still my intention to work to ensure that Iran doesn't get nuclear-weapons capability, which is different than just nuclear weapons," he said. "So we are considering everything including perusing the sanctions that we've laid out at some point in time to achieve that goal to make sure they don't."
He declined to elaborate on what other course of action he might consider.
That's a full flip from just more than a month ago. Before the December recess, the Senate's pro-sanctions faction was surging. Senators—including Democrats who are typically Obama loyalists—were agreeing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that the nuclear negotiations with Iran bordered on capitulation.
So how did Obama—a supposedly feckless president when it comes to handling Congress—turn the tide?
Obama's in-person, all-hands-on-deck advocacy campaign with the Senate appears to have advanced his cause, but it's not that simple.
"It's a combination of one side not doing that much and the other side doing a lot. The AIPAC guys have not been calling us and usually we would be hearing from them," a Democratic Senate aide said. AIPAC is shorthand for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's best-known pro-Israel lobby group.
Obama started by reaching out to Congress in their house and his: He sent envoys, including Secretary of State John Kerry, to Capitol Hill, and he invited key players to a White House meeting to make a case that independent Sen. Angus King of Maine labeled "incredibly powerful."
But outreach on Iran is nothing new. What is different this time is that, unlike with past rounds of sanctions against Iran where the interplay has been more theoretical, the Islamic republic is actually at the negotiating table, at least going through the motions of entertaining the dismantling of its nuclear-weapons capabilities. Tremendous skepticism remains that the talks will ultimately work—including from inside the administration—but the ongoing talks at least give concerned senators an alternative.
And then there was the resurgent progressive movement that capitalized on a war-weary public to push Democrats in Obama's direction. MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and other liberal media outlets have mobilized against Democrats who supported sanctions, accusing them of undermining Obama with warmongering and asking, "Where's the antiwar Left?"
Finally, Obama was the beneficiary of weakened opposition. The Israel lobby has succeeded in influencing Iran policy for decades, but it's currently in a state of upheaval. AIPAC has not been beating down doors canvassing Capitol Hill in a concerted campaign as it has in the past, and J Street—AIPAC's younger, rising counterweight—is making the case against sanctions.
"The bottom line is that more and more members want to give the administration the space they are asking for to try to negotiate a deal with Iran. If it doesn't work they'll begin to ratchet up the sanctions more," a former senior Democratic Senate aide said. "I believe the administration now has the space they are looking for."
Another Senate aide agreed that outside forces are making a difference.
"The president's base has gone all-in with his party, cashed in every chit possible, applied every possible pressure point on Democrats, used messaging and rhetoric that fires up the liberal base, and activated grass roots to target Democrats and make them afraid of this bill from the left," said the aide. "Unfortunately it's turned it partisan, and we'll see if Republicans will take the next step."
The impact of Democrats growing gun-shy could have implications for the GOP agenda. The House passed additional sanctions against Iran in July, before the current negotiations were announced. House GOP leaders have since flirted with bringing up the pending Senate sanctions bill, but have been concerned about losing Democrats and thus losing any impact by turning an intended bipartisan message partisan. At the same time, House Republican leaders have struggled to convince senior Democrats to push forward a less controversial, bipartisan nonbinding resolution on Iran.
Matthew Duss, a policy analyst with the liberal Center for American Progress, argued that the outreach from liberal groups has made an impact by tapping into war fatigue.
"Without question, there has been great work done by progressive organizations, communicating with policymakers and legislators some of the problems with the sanctions bill and urging the activists and grassroots community and constituents to call their own elected members," he said. "You've seen the resurrection of elements of the Iraq War Coalition on the left who remember that we got ourselves into a huge mess in the Middle East are sending this message: 'Let's not do that again.' That's a very strong motivating factor."
Democratic operatives tracking the issue said that as Democrats have had time to digest the legislation, the details have given them cold feet. The bill, for example, does more than simply impose additional sanctions if Iran breaks its agreement. It also calls for authorizing military force to support Israel in any military conflict against Iran.
"The recognition that the language was so broadly written that passage of the legislation could in fact lead to the possibility of a confrontation with Iran is what tipped the scales," the former senior Democratic Senate aide said. "That language was written pretty strongly. The more folks delved into it, the more concerned they became that it puts the U.S. in a very aggressive posture. Everyone wants to do everything they can to support Israel, but more folks are beginning to look inwards again and are very war-weary."
Of the 59 cosponsors on the legislation, 16 are Democrats. But it is hard to find any Democratic cosponsor who is eager to talk about the bill these days. Many dodged questions, while others such as Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Christopher Coons of Delaware, and Ben Cardin of Maryland are frank that they are not pushing for a vote.
Manchin said he intended the bill to send a message of support for Israel and underscore a goal of upending Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions. But he said that a vote could actually cost his sponsorship of the bill.
"I never intended for that bill to come to a vote and debate," he said. "If they start moving it forward I might need to start making a decision about whether I stay on the bill or not."
Even Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, who is the lead Democrat sponsoring sanctions legislation, is noncommittal about whether he wants to see his bill become law.
When asked if it was still his goal to push for a vote on the bill, he sidestepped.
"It is still my intention to work to ensure that Iran doesn't get nuclear-weapons capability, which is different than just nuclear weapons," he said. "So we are considering everything including perusing the sanctions that we've laid out at some point in time to achieve that goal to make sure they don't."
He declined to elaborate on what other course of action he might consider.
23 January 2014
Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill & Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill & Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.” & Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam 22,16&17JAN14
I e mailed my senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, telling them to oppose S 1881, to give diplomacy a chance to work. I haven't received an answer from Warner (just request for donations to his campaign) but was very happy with Sen Kaine's as he is not a supporter of increasing sanctions on Iran until all diplomatic options are exhausted.
More sanctions on Iran could lead us into another war. The vast majority of the cosponsors of S 1881, especially the democrats, have not served in the US Military, yet they are all to willing to push the war option regarding Iran. Constituents can find out if their senator is a cosponsor of the bill and if they served in the military at http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/sen-tim-kaine-d-va-supports-diplomacy.html and e mail them their thoughts on both.
American and Iranian politicians need to listen to the vast majority of their people. We expect them to give peace a chance. Below are a series of articles from Daily Kos and the Washington Post on S 1881, the threat it poses to peace in the Persian Gulf, the opposition to S 1881 by Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA, Sen Patty Murry D WA, Sen Majority leader Harry Reid D NV, Sen Dick Durbin D IL as well as Sec of State Kerry and Pres Obama. And there is an excellent report on Sen Diane Feinstein's (D CA) opposition to S 1881 and the way she publicly slapped down Israeli PM bibi netanyahu and aipac, the pro-Isreal lobby in the U.S., telling them it is not Israel's place to tell America when and where we will go to war! WELL SAID SEN FEINSTEIN!
Add two more prominent Senators to the list of lawmakers who oppose a
vote on an Iran sanctions bill right now: Patty Murray and Elizabeth
Warren.
Murray’s opposition — which she declared in a letter to constituents that was sent my way by a source — is significant, because she is a member of the Senate Dem leadership, which is now clearly split on how to proceed. While Chuck Schumer favors the Iran sanctions bill, Murray, Harry Reid and (reportedly) Dick Durbin now oppose it. This could make it less likely that it ever gets a vote.
From Murray’s letter:
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is circulating a letter to constituents out there that also opposes a vote. Asked about the letter, Warren spokesperson Lacey Rose emails me:
The method by which both Senators declared their positions — letters to constituents, in response to questions perhaps stoked by pressure from outside groups — says something about the caution Dems are demonstrating when it comes to the domestic politics of engagement with Iran. Those who favored a vote were far more vocal at first — as of now, 16 Dem Senators have signed on. But the continued silence of many Dem Senators signaled a broad unwillingness to join the bill, even as many were unwilling to publicly declare this to be the case, since Dems apparently see allowing negotiations to proceed, without getting a chance to vote in favor of getting tougher on Iran, as a politically difficult position to take.
If current conditions remain, a vote is starting to look less and less likely. Right now, the bill has 58 co-sponsors. On the other side, 10 Dem Senate committee chairs have signed a letter opposing a vote. Around half a dozen Dem Senators subsequently came out against it. With Murray and Warren, the number of Dems against a vote has comfortably surpassed the number who want one.
Meanwhile, announcements like the one earlier this month indicating that the deal with Iran is moving forward make a vote still less likely. With Murray now opposed, that means virtually the whole Dem leadership is a No. On the other hand, those who adamantly want a vote — insisting it would only help the White House and make success more likely, despite what the White House itself wants – will be looking for any hook they can find to reactivate pressure.
And it’s worth stressing that if this ever did come to a vote, it’s quite possible that many of the Dems still remaining silent could still vote Yes. Those Democrats would be putting themselves in a ridiculous, untenable position if they did that, but since many appear convinced that the alternative is politically worse, it remains a very real possibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/22/another-blow-to-the-iran-sanctions-bill/?wp_login_redirect=0
A week ago, it appeared that a bill to tighten the screws on Iran over
its nuclear program was headed for certain success in the Senate.
Initiated by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, S. 1881—the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act—would
not only have imposed new economic sanctions, it would also have
committed the United States to use military force in support of Israel
if that nation attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran retaliated.
By last Wednesday, Menendez had 58 co-sponsors, including 15
Democrats. Talk centered on whether an additional eight could be
gathered to make the bill veto-proof.
But as Steve Benen at the Rachel Maddow blog notes today, there's been a turnaround:
The switch in the United States can be chalked up in part to White House pressure, the 10 Senate committee chairpersons who wrote a letter opposing more sanctions and surprises like hawk Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) saying new sanctions would "blow up" the negotiations for a long-term international agreement with Iran limiting its nuclear program. The other source of opposition, Benen says a Senate staffer told him, is that "public pressure has also increased, with more voters contacting the Hill with phone calls and emails, voicing opposition to the bill."
Please join us in keeping up that public pressure by opposing the Menendez sanctions bill.
More sanctions on Iran could lead us into another war. The vast majority of the cosponsors of S 1881, especially the democrats, have not served in the US Military, yet they are all to willing to push the war option regarding Iran. Constituents can find out if their senator is a cosponsor of the bill and if they served in the military at http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/sen-tim-kaine-d-va-supports-diplomacy.html and e mail them their thoughts on both.
American and Iranian politicians need to listen to the vast majority of their people. We expect them to give peace a chance. Below are a series of articles from Daily Kos and the Washington Post on S 1881, the threat it poses to peace in the Persian Gulf, the opposition to S 1881 by Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA, Sen Patty Murry D WA, Sen Majority leader Harry Reid D NV, Sen Dick Durbin D IL as well as Sec of State Kerry and Pres Obama. And there is an excellent report on Sen Diane Feinstein's (D CA) opposition to S 1881 and the way she publicly slapped down Israeli PM bibi netanyahu and aipac, the pro-Isreal lobby in the U.S., telling them it is not Israel's place to tell America when and where we will go to war! WELL SAID SEN FEINSTEIN!
Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST
Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill
Elizabeth Warren – an unyielding progressive on economic issues –
does not often make headlines in the foreign policy department. However,
today she made waves by coming out strongly against the Iran sanctions bill which threatens to derail President Obama's diplomatic progress.
Warren made her position clear in a letter to constituents, which was described by Warren's spokesperson Lacy Rose in the following way:
Which is why Warren and Murray coming out today is so significant, and why pressure on those who remain silent must be maintained.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
Warren made her position clear in a letter to constituents, which was described by Warren's spokesperson Lacy Rose in the following way:
“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”Warren broke her silence today along with Senator Patty Murray, who as part of the Senate Democratic leadership proved that a definite rift within the Democratic Party on the sanctions bill exists – a rift which may prevent the bill coming up for a vote. Though as Greg Sargent writes, there is still the possibility of such a vote with 58 senators having come out in favor, and many Democrats still silent on their position.
Which is why Warren and Murray coming out today is so significant, and why pressure on those who remain silent must be maintained.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
Originally posted to David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour) on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST.
Also republished by Writing by David Harris Gershon.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/22/1271714/-Elizabeth-Warren-Goes-All-Foreign-Policy-on-Iran-Sanctions-Bill?
Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill
By Greg Sargent
Patty Murray (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Murray’s opposition — which she declared in a letter to constituents that was sent my way by a source — is significant, because she is a member of the Senate Dem leadership, which is now clearly split on how to proceed. While Chuck Schumer favors the Iran sanctions bill, Murray, Harry Reid and (reportedly) Dick Durbin now oppose it. This could make it less likely that it ever gets a vote.
From Murray’s letter:
Please know that I share your concerns about the Iranian government’s nuclear program. Like you, I am troubled by Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and their desire to enrich nuclear materials above levels required for energy production. That is why I was pleased to see Iran take measurable steps toward addressing the international community’s concerns by signing the Joint Plan of Action last fall…While I still remain concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, I believe this agreement could be an important step in our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to this complicated issue.This hits some of the key points: The mere possibility of a long term deal is worth trying for, and sanctions can always be imposed later if the talks go awry.
I believe the Administration should be given time to negotiate a strong verifiable comprehensive agreement. However, if Iran does not agree to a comprehensive agreement that is acceptable, or if Iran does not abide by the terms of the interim agreement, I will work with my colleagues to swiftly enact sanctions in order to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is circulating a letter to constituents out there that also opposes a vote. Asked about the letter, Warren spokesperson Lacey Rose emails me:
“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”Warren’s pull with the Democratic base, of course, is largely rooted in her emphasis on economic issues, but there has been some chatter in liberal circles inquiring about her stance on Iran. Since a mobilized left is important in preventing a vote that could derail diplomacy, her opposition can only help.
The method by which both Senators declared their positions — letters to constituents, in response to questions perhaps stoked by pressure from outside groups — says something about the caution Dems are demonstrating when it comes to the domestic politics of engagement with Iran. Those who favored a vote were far more vocal at first — as of now, 16 Dem Senators have signed on. But the continued silence of many Dem Senators signaled a broad unwillingness to join the bill, even as many were unwilling to publicly declare this to be the case, since Dems apparently see allowing negotiations to proceed, without getting a chance to vote in favor of getting tougher on Iran, as a politically difficult position to take.
If current conditions remain, a vote is starting to look less and less likely. Right now, the bill has 58 co-sponsors. On the other side, 10 Dem Senate committee chairs have signed a letter opposing a vote. Around half a dozen Dem Senators subsequently came out against it. With Murray and Warren, the number of Dems against a vote has comfortably surpassed the number who want one.
Meanwhile, announcements like the one earlier this month indicating that the deal with Iran is moving forward make a vote still less likely. With Murray now opposed, that means virtually the whole Dem leadership is a No. On the other hand, those who adamantly want a vote — insisting it would only help the White House and make success more likely, despite what the White House itself wants – will be looking for any hook they can find to reactivate pressure.
And it’s worth stressing that if this ever did come to a vote, it’s quite possible that many of the Dems still remaining silent could still vote Yes. Those Democrats would be putting themselves in a ridiculous, untenable position if they did that, but since many appear convinced that the alternative is politically worse, it remains a very real possibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/22/another-blow-to-the-iran-sanctions-bill/?wp_login_redirect=0
Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.”
I have been heartened by the recent pushback against the AIPAC scheme
to destroy negotiations with Iran, i.e., the current sanctions bill,
and to turn the war power of the United States Constitution effectively
over to Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu.
President Obama's spokeperson recently laid it on the line by saying that if members of Congress want a war, they should say so:
10 committee chairs in the senate oppose this bill and it looks as if Reid is not going to bring it to a vote.
Such a bill never should have been this close to passing. Our Congress has a big problem. Nonetheless, people like Senator Feinstein, who I believe is a strong supporter of Israel, stood up against this. On foreign policy and civil liberties, we often disagree. But she has my thanks for helping to avert war and allow negotiations to proceed. Senator Reid, President Obama and Secretary Kerry also deserve much credit.
President Obama's spokeperson recently laid it on the line by saying that if members of Congress want a war, they should say so:
According to National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan, “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. 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 White House said the bill “would divide the international community, drive the Iranians to take a harder line, and possibly end negotiations.”New Sanctions on Iran Could Torpedo Negotiations Senator Feinstein followed this up by openly rejected the attempt to turn the war power of the US Constitution over to Israel's current prime minister:
Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Intelligence Committee, called the sanctions bill "a march towards war" on Tuesday in a floor speech that was remarkable in detail and force. “I deeply believe that a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse,” Feinstein said, after thoroughly rebutting many of the claims about the interim deal put forth by the bill’s supporters. “The United States, not Iran, then becomes the party that risks fracturing the international coalition that has enabled our sanctions to succeed in the first place.” snipThe Nation: Push for New Sanctions on Iran Stalls Amid Growing Resistance Through the toughness of the President and the patriotism of a few, including Senator Feinstein, who often is much more hawkish, I think we have averted the attempt to bring this nation to war by the current Israeli government and its lobbyists in the United States.
Dianne Feinstein addressed this point more directly than perhaps any other politician so far. “While I recognize and share Israel’s concern, we cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war,” she said. “By stating that the US should provide military support to Israel should it attack Iran, I fear that is exactly what this bill will do.”
10 committee chairs in the senate oppose this bill and it looks as if Reid is not going to bring it to a vote.
Such a bill never should have been this close to passing. Our Congress has a big problem. Nonetheless, people like Senator Feinstein, who I believe is a strong supporter of Israel, stood up against this. On foreign policy and civil liberties, we often disagree. But she has my thanks for helping to avert war and allow negotiations to proceed. Senator Reid, President Obama and Secretary Kerry also deserve much credit.
Originally posted to TomP on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:22 AM PST.
Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East and California politics.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/16/1270111/-Sen-Feinstein-We-cannot-let-Israel-determine-when-and-where-the-US-goes-to-war
Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST
Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam
Uranium-concentrating centrifuges at Natanz, Iran.
But as Steve Benen at the Rachel Maddow blog notes today, there's been a turnaround:
Just [in] the last few days, however, the odds of such a bill even reaching the president’s desk have dropped unexpectedly. The Hill, for example, reported yesterday that House Republicans “are moving away from a proposal to adopt new Iran sanctions.” House Democrats who were otherwise sympathetic to the idea became “irked” by GOP political tactics “and the idea appears to have been at least temporarily shelved.”Meanwhile, in the Senate, the effort to get 67 co-sponsors on board has stalled, with no new names being added since last week. And while U.S. support for new sanctions has fallen off, at least for the moment, the European Union will begin relaxing some of its sanctions next week if inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran is complying with the restrictions agreed to by negotiators in Geneva in November. Good news all around.
The switch in the United States can be chalked up in part to White House pressure, the 10 Senate committee chairpersons who wrote a letter opposing more sanctions and surprises like hawk Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) saying new sanctions would "blow up" the negotiations for a long-term international agreement with Iran limiting its nuclear program. The other source of opposition, Benen says a Senate staffer told him, is that "public pressure has also increased, with more voters contacting the Hill with phone calls and emails, voicing opposition to the bill."
Please join us in keeping up that public pressure by opposing the Menendez sanctions bill.
Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST.
Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East, More and Better Democracies, and Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/17/1270433/-Congressional-move-to-add-more-sanctions-on-Iran-has-run-out-of-steam
22 January 2014
Sen Tim Kaine D VA supports diplomacy & Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill & THE LACK OF MILITARY SERVICE AMONG US SENATORS PUSHING WAR WITH IRAN & Imposing more sanctions on Iran would not just trash nuclear talks, it would hurt Iranian reformers 22&16&14JAN14
LAST week I sent e mails to my senators asking them to oppose S 1881, the bill to impose more sanctions in Iran instead of giving diplomacy a chance to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. I got a response from Sen Tim Kaine D VA, one of my senators who had not signed on as a sponsor of S 1881, and he is against increasing sanctions on Iran (and so increasing the chance of war with Iran) and is in favor of giving diplomacy a chance. My letter to Sen Kaine and his response below. THANK YOU SEN KAINE!!!! It is followed by the announcement that Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA and Sen Patty Murry D WA have both come out against S 1881 and in favor of giving diplomacy a chance. Last is my list of the senators cosponsoring S 1881 and their US military service, or for the vast majority of them, the lack of military service....
My letter to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, undecided at this time (16JAN14)
Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process.
I expect you to oppose S 1881, rejecting the pressure from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and the American military-industrial in their attempt to protect their profit margins (and yes, it really is that simple). And since you have never served our nation in the US military I expect you to be extremely hesitant to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war, such as a war with Iran. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and know you serve with her on the Senate Banking Committee. I suggest you look to her and not Sen Warner for inspiration on how to best serve the people of Virginia and the whole nation as she has the morals and courage sorely need right now in the US Senate.
SENATOR Kaine's response to me
HERE are the war pig senators who are sponsoring sen robert menendez's D NJ bill, S 1881, to increase sanctions on Iran in opposition to the nuclear reduction agreement just negotiated by the U.S., our European partners and Iran. This agreement decreases tensions in the Persian Gulf and starts the process of eliminating Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. If passed, S 1881 will only increase tensions and the probability we will be in another war in the region. Before we allow our senators to destroy the beginning of peaceful relations with Iran they should be reminded of their lack of sacrifice for our nation in our military and told they have no right to send our troops to be wounded, crippled and killed to protect their campaign contributions from the pro Israeli lobby in Washington and to protect their campaign contributions from and profit margins of the military-industrial complex. If your senator is sponsoring S 1881 and has not served in the US Military click the link and call them out on their hypocrisy, their willingness to send others to war while they didn't serve. And if they are sponsoring S 1881 and did serve in the US Military send them a message shaming them for their support and remind them a war with Iran will not be a "just" war. If you think you don't know what to say to your senators my letters are below
Sen.
Bob Menendez is pushing forward with legislation to impose new economic
sanctions on Iran, a move that could kill the Obama administration’s
negotiations to strictly limit Iran’s nuclear program and verify those
limits with international inspections.
Simply put, Menendez’s bill could close the door to a diplomatic solution and force a military action against Iran. Worryingly, right now it has 5934 public supporters, split almost evenly between the two parties, versus only 10 13 public opponents. [Update: The bill has 25 new co-sponsors, all but one of whom is Republican, bringing the total number of public supporters to 59.]
Menendez’s bill is reckless and irresponsible and we need to make sure that senators hear from their constituents on this hugely important issue before a veto-proof majority (67 senators) forms in favor of it.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
My letter to Sen Mark Warner D VA, a cosponsor of S 1881
I am outraged to see that you support Sen. Menendez’s bill to impose new sanctions on Iran. These sanctions could kill the Obama administration’s attempts to end this standoff peacefully.
I disgusted by your decision to support S 1881 to protect your campaign contributions from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and to protect your campaign contributions from the American military-industrial complex as well as their profit margins. But what is really disgusting is your willingness to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war when you yourself have NEVER served our nation in our military.
You have an election coming up. You are already seen as a republican in Democrats clothing, their will be no reason at all to support you over your republican challenger if you support S 1881 or any other legislation like it and take us into another senseless war. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, and I wish you had her morals and courage to do the right thing.
My letter to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, undecided at this time
Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process.
I expect you to oppose S 1881, rejecting the pressure from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and the American military-industrial in their attempt to protect their profit margins (and yes, it really is that simple). And since you have never served our nation in the US military I expect you to be extremely hesitant to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war, such as a war with Iran. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and know you serve with her on the Senate Banking Committee. I suggest you look to her and not Sen Warner for inspiration on how to best serve the people of Virginia and the whole nation as she has the morals and courage sorely need right now in the US Senate.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
My letter to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, undecided at this time (16JAN14)
Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process.
I expect you to oppose S 1881, rejecting the pressure from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and the American military-industrial in their attempt to protect their profit margins (and yes, it really is that simple). And since you have never served our nation in the US military I expect you to be extremely hesitant to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war, such as a war with Iran. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and know you serve with her on the Senate Banking Committee. I suggest you look to her and not Sen Warner for inspiration on how to best serve the people of Virginia and the whole nation as she has the morals and courage sorely need right now in the US Senate.
SENATOR Kaine's response to me
January 22, 2014
Dear Mr. Schwanke:
Thank you for contacting me about Iran. I appreciate hearing from you.
In
June 2013, Hassan Rouhani was elected the new president of Iran. On
August 2, 2013 I led a bipartisan group of 76 Senators in a letter to
President Obama, urging a renewed sense of urgency to the negotiation
process with the understanding the time for diplomacy is now. This
letter exhorted serious and immediate moves on Iran's part to comply
with United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding it suspend
the enrichment of uranium, and cease the installation of centrifuges and
work on the heavy water reactor being built in Arak.
On
November 24, 2013 Iran and the P5 + 1 reached an agreement to freeze
and reverse key components of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for
temporary relief from some economic sanctions. This interim deal helps
reduce stockpiles of enriched uranium to levels appropriate only for
civilian use, halts uranium enrichment above dangerous levels, caps the
number of centrifuges used for enrichment, and imposes intrusive daily
inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency that can give the
world immediate warning if Iran plans to move towards nuclear weapons.
The purpose of this temporary agreement is to pave the way towards a
comprehensive resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining nuclear
weapons.
At
this time, it is important to use all diplomatic efforts to prevent
Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In the midst of constructive
diplomatic negotiations, I believe that imposing additional sanctions
would be counterproductive to the work we have accomplished with our
international partners. I support the current crippling sanctions
regime and will gladly vote for additional sanctions should these
negotiations falter. But now is the chance to give diplomacy a chance.
Moving
forward, I will continue to closely monitor developments in Iran and
support efforts that keep our nation safe. Thank you again for
contacting me.
Sincerely,
Tim Kaine
Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST
Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill
Elizabeth Warren – an unyielding progressive on economic issues –
does not often make headlines in the foreign policy department. However,
today she made waves by coming out strongly against the Iran sanctions bill which threatens to derail President Obama's diplomatic progress.
Warren made her position clear in a letter to constituents, which was described by Warren's spokesperson Lacy Rose in the following way:
Which is why Warren and Murray coming out today is so significant, and why pressure on those who remain silent must be maintained.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
Warren made her position clear in a letter to constituents, which was described by Warren's spokesperson Lacy Rose in the following way:
“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”Warren broke her silence today along with Senator Patty Murray, who as part of the Senate Democratic leadership proved that a definite rift within the Democratic Party on the sanctions bill exists – a rift which may prevent the bill coming up for a vote. Though as Greg Sargent writes, there is still the possibility of such a vote with 58 senators having come out in favor, and many Democrats still silent on their position.
Which is why Warren and Murray coming out today is so significant, and why pressure on those who remain silent must be maintained.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
Originally posted to David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour) on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST.
Also republished by Writing by David Harris Gershon.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/22/1271714/-Elizabeth-Warren-Goes-All-Foreign-Policy-on-Iran-Sanctions-Bill?
THE LACK OF MILITARY SERVICE AMONG US SENATORS PUSHING WAR WITH IRAN & Imposing more sanctions on Iran would not just trash nuclear talks, it would hurt Iranian reformers 16&14JAN14 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-lack-of-military-service-among-us.html
HERE are the war pig senators who are sponsoring sen robert menendez's D NJ bill, S 1881, to increase sanctions on Iran in opposition to the nuclear reduction agreement just negotiated by the U.S., our European partners and Iran. This agreement decreases tensions in the Persian Gulf and starts the process of eliminating Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. If passed, S 1881 will only increase tensions and the probability we will be in another war in the region. Before we allow our senators to destroy the beginning of peaceful relations with Iran they should be reminded of their lack of sacrifice for our nation in our military and told they have no right to send our troops to be wounded, crippled and killed to protect their campaign contributions from the pro Israeli lobby in Washington and to protect their campaign contributions from and profit margins of the military-industrial complex. If your senator is sponsoring S 1881 and has not served in the US Military click the link and call them out on their hypocrisy, their willingness to send others to war while they didn't serve. And if they are sponsoring S 1881 and did serve in the US Military send them a message shaming them for their support and remind them a war with Iran will not be a "just" war. If you think you don't know what to say to your senators my letters are below
Tell your senators: Give diplomacy a chance. Oppose the Menendez sanctions on Iran.
Sen.
Bob Menendez is pushing forward with legislation to impose new economic
sanctions on Iran, a move that could kill the Obama administration’s
negotiations to strictly limit Iran’s nuclear program and verify those
limits with international inspections.Simply put, Menendez’s bill could close the door to a diplomatic solution and force a military action against Iran. Worryingly, right now it has 59
Menendez’s bill is reckless and irresponsible and we need to make sure that senators hear from their constituents on this hugely important issue before a veto-proof majority (67 senators) forms in favor of it.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
Sen. Mark Warner
District: VAS01
Phone:(202) 224-2023
Fax:(202) 224-6295
My letter to Sen Mark Warner D VA, a cosponsor of S 1881
I am outraged to see that you support Sen. Menendez’s bill to impose new sanctions on Iran. These sanctions could kill the Obama administration’s attempts to end this standoff peacefully.
I disgusted by your decision to support S 1881 to protect your campaign contributions from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and to protect your campaign contributions from the American military-industrial complex as well as their profit margins. But what is really disgusting is your willingness to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war when you yourself have NEVER served our nation in our military.
You have an election coming up. You are already seen as a republican in Democrats clothing, their will be no reason at all to support you over your republican challenger if you support S 1881 or any other legislation like it and take us into another senseless war. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, and I wish you had her morals and courage to do the right thing.
Sen. Tim Kaine
District: VAS02
Phone:(202) 224-4024
Fax:(202) 228-6363
My letter to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, undecided at this time
Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process.
I expect you to oppose S 1881, rejecting the pressure from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and the American military-industrial in their attempt to protect their profit margins (and yes, it really is that simple). And since you have never served our nation in the US military I expect you to be extremely hesitant to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war, such as a war with Iran. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and know you serve with her on the Senate Banking Committee. I suggest you look to her and not Sen Warner for inspiration on how to best serve the people of Virginia and the whole nation as she has the morals and courage sorely need right now in the US Senate.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
S.1881 - Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013113th Congress (2013-2014)
Bill
| Sponsor: | Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 12/19/2013) |
|---|---|
| Cosponsors: | 58 |
| Latest Action: | 12/20/2013 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 288. |
| Major Recorded Votes: | There are no Roll Call votes for this bill. |
Cosponsors: S.1881 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
* = Original cosponsor
| Cosponsor | Date Cosponsored |
|---|---|
| Democratic Party— Alphabetical | |
| Sen. Begich, Mark [D-AK]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]* | 12/19/2013 USMC RESERVE |
| Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Hagan, Kay [D-NC]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Landrieu, Mary L. [D-LA]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Republican Party— Alphabetical | |
| Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Chambliss, Saxby [R-GA] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Coats, Daniel [R-IN] | 12/20/2013 U.S. ARMY |
| Sen. Coburn, Tom [R-OK] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] | 01/09/2014 U.S. NAVY |
| Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Corker, Bob [R-TN]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] | 01/09/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] | 01/06/2014 U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD |
| Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]* | 12/19/2013 USAF ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE |
| Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] | 01/06/2014 U.S. ARMY |
| Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] | 12/20/2013 U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD |
| Sen. Johanns, Mike [R-NE]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL]* | 12/19/2013 U.S. NAVY |
| Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ]* | 12/19/2013 U.S. NAVY |
| Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY] | 01/09/2014 U.S. ARMY RESERVE |
| Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS]* | 12/19/2013 USMC |
| Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Sessions, Jeff [R-AL] | 01/09/2014 U.S. ARMY RESERVE |
| Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] | 01/09/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Toomey, Pat [R-PA] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE 01/06/2014 U.S. AIR FORCE |
| Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS] | |
16 January 2014
THE LACK OF MILITARY SERVICE AMONG US SENATORS PUSHING WAR WITH IRAN & Imposing more sanctions on Iran would not just trash nuclear talks, it would hurt Iranian reformers 16&14JAN14
HERE are the war pig senators who are sponsoring sen robert menendez's D NJ bill, S 1881, to increase sanctions on Iran in opposition to the nuclear reduction agreement just negotiated by the U.S., our European partners and Iran. This agreement decreases tensions in the Persian Gulf and starts the process of eliminating Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. If passed, S 1881 will only increase tensions and the probability we will be in another war in the region. Before we allow our senators to destroy the beginning of peaceful relations with Iran they should be reminded of their lack of sacrifice for our nation in our military and told they have no right to send our troops to be wounded, crippled and killed to protect their campaign contributions from the pro Israeli lobby in Washington and to protect their campaign contributions from and profit margins of the military-industrial complex. If your senator is sponsoring S 1881 and has not served in the US Military click the link and call them out on their hypocrisy, their willingness to send others to war while they didn't serve. And if they are sponsoring S 1881 and did serve in the US Military send them a message shaming them for their support and remind them a war with Iran will not be a "just" war. If you think you don't know what to say to your senators my letters are below
Sen.
Bob Menendez is pushing forward with legislation to impose new economic
sanctions on Iran, a move that could kill the Obama administration’s
negotiations to strictly limit Iran’s nuclear program and verify those
limits with international inspections.
Simply put, Menendez’s bill could close the door to a diplomatic solution and force a military action against Iran. Worryingly, right now it has 5934 public supporters, split almost evenly between the two parties, versus only 10 13 public opponents. [Update: The bill has 25 new co-sponsors, all but one of whom is Republican, bringing the total number of public supporters to 59.]
Menendez’s bill is reckless and irresponsible and we need to make sure that senators hear from their constituents on this hugely important issue before a veto-proof majority (67 senators) forms in favor of it.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
My letter to Sen Mark Warner D VA, a cosponsor of S 1881
I am outraged to see that you support Sen. Menendez’s bill to impose new sanctions on Iran. These sanctions could kill the Obama administration’s attempts to end this standoff peacefully.
I disgusted by your decision to support S 1881 to protect your campaign contributions from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and to protect your campaign contributions from the American military-industrial complex as well as their profit margins. But what is really disgusting is your willingness to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war when you yourself have NEVER served our nation in our military.
You have an election coming up. You are already seen as a republican in Democrats clothing, their will be no reason at all to support you over your republican challenger if you support S 1881 or any other legislation like it and take us into another senseless war. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, and I wish you had her morals and courage to do the right thing.
My letter to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, undecided at this time
Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process.
I expect you to oppose S 1881, rejecting the pressure from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and the American military-industrial in their attempt to protect their profit margins (and yes, it really is that simple). And since you have never served our nation in the US military I expect you to be extremely hesitant to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war, such as a war with Iran. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and know you serve with her on the Senate Banking Committee. I suggest you look to her and not Sen Warner for inspiration on how to best serve the people of Virginia and the whole nation as she has the morals and courage sorely need right now in the US Senate.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
Tell your senators: Give diplomacy a chance. Oppose the Menendez sanctions on Iran.
Sen.
Bob Menendez is pushing forward with legislation to impose new economic
sanctions on Iran, a move that could kill the Obama administration’s
negotiations to strictly limit Iran’s nuclear program and verify those
limits with international inspections.Simply put, Menendez’s bill could close the door to a diplomatic solution and force a military action against Iran. Worryingly, right now it has 59
Menendez’s bill is reckless and irresponsible and we need to make sure that senators hear from their constituents on this hugely important issue before a veto-proof majority (67 senators) forms in favor of it.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
Sen. Mark Warner
District: VAS01
Phone:(202) 224-2023
Fax:(202) 224-6295
My letter to Sen Mark Warner D VA, a cosponsor of S 1881
I am outraged to see that you support Sen. Menendez’s bill to impose new sanctions on Iran. These sanctions could kill the Obama administration’s attempts to end this standoff peacefully.
I disgusted by your decision to support S 1881 to protect your campaign contributions from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and to protect your campaign contributions from the American military-industrial complex as well as their profit margins. But what is really disgusting is your willingness to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war when you yourself have NEVER served our nation in our military.
You have an election coming up. You are already seen as a republican in Democrats clothing, their will be no reason at all to support you over your republican challenger if you support S 1881 or any other legislation like it and take us into another senseless war. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, and I wish you had her morals and courage to do the right thing.
Sen. Tim Kaine
District: VAS02
Phone:(202) 224-4024
Fax:(202) 228-6363
My letter to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, undecided at this time
Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process.
I expect you to oppose S 1881, rejecting the pressure from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and the American military-industrial in their attempt to protect their profit margins (and yes, it really is that simple). And since you have never served our nation in the US military I expect you to be extremely hesitant to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war, such as a war with Iran. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and know you serve with her on the Senate Banking Committee. I suggest you look to her and not Sen Warner for inspiration on how to best serve the people of Virginia and the whole nation as she has the morals and courage sorely need right now in the US Senate.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699
S.1881 - Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013113th Congress (2013-2014)
Bill
| Sponsor: | Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 12/19/2013) |
|---|---|
| Cosponsors: | 58 |
| Latest Action: | 12/20/2013 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 288. |
| Major Recorded Votes: | There are no Roll Call votes for this bill. |
Cosponsors: S.1881 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
* = Original cosponsor
| Cosponsor | Date Cosponsored |
|---|---|
| Democratic Party— Alphabetical | |
| Sen. Begich, Mark [D-AK]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]* | 12/19/2013 USMC RESERVE |
| Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Hagan, Kay [D-NC]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Landrieu, Mary L. [D-LA]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Republican Party— Alphabetical | |
| Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Chambliss, Saxby [R-GA] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Coats, Daniel [R-IN] | 12/20/2013 U.S. ARMY |
| Sen. Coburn, Tom [R-OK] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] | 01/09/2014 U.S. NAVY |
| Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Corker, Bob [R-TN]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] | 01/09/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] | 01/06/2014 U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD |
| Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]* | 12/19/2013 USAF ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE |
| Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] | 01/06/2014 U.S. ARMY |
| Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] | 12/20/2013 U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD |
| Sen. Johanns, Mike [R-NE]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI] | 01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL]* | 12/19/2013 U.S. NAVY |
| Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ]* | 12/19/2013 U.S. NAVY |
| Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY] | 01/09/2014 U.S. ARMY RESERVE |
| Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS]* | 12/19/2013 USMC |
| Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]* | 12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Sessions, Jeff [R-AL] | 01/09/2014 U.S. ARMY RESERVE |
| Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL] | 01/09/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Thune, John [R-SD] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Toomey, Pat [R-PA] | 01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE |
| Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA] | 12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE 01/06/2014 U.S. AIR FORCE |
| Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:52 PM PST
Imposing more sanctions on Iran would not just trash nuclear talks, it would hurt Iranian reformers
Iran's not-yet-completed heavy-water-moderated nuclear reactor at Arak. Further
development at the reactor is frozen as part of the six-month Geneva agreement. Whether or not one agrees that currently existing sanctions are a good thing and forced the Iranians to the negotiating table with the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, adding more sanctions would be worse than counterproductive. Iran's foreign minister said a month ago that doing so would bring an end to further negotiations. But the outcome would be worse than a return to square one. After years of working for a diplomatic solution, albeit while cyber attacks were launched against Iran, an end of negotiations would put us directly on a road to war. Hardliners in Tehran would receive a "we-told-you-so" moment with which to cudgel Iranian moderates, like President Hassan Rouhani, who have a hard enough time as it is making political headway under the ruling hand of the mullahs. And if hardliners in Iran reassert their hard grasp on policy, hardliners in the United States won't be far behind. Why these 16 Democrats want to give the bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran factions of the U.S. and Israel a political edge against President Obama's Iran's policy is beyond understanding unless they all along have stood with them. Before you read further analysis below the fold, please join us in backing diplomacy with opposition to Sen. Menendez's legislation.
David Brumberg, special adviser at the 30-year-old U.S. Institute of Peace, writes:
If by 2010 U.S. military leaders were signaling their lack of enthusiasm for an attack, this was because many had concluded that a military approach required weeks if not months of war with Iran—after Iraq and Afghanistan it wasn't only the American public that opposed new military adventures. Such calculations pointed to only one reasonable option: a diplomatic solution. It is interesting to note that the Obama administration apparently came to this conclusion months before Hassan Rouhani's surprise election—well before most U.S. Iran experts could envision Iran's domestic politics tolerating the return of former Ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif, and his pragmatic foreign policy camp, as Rouhani's foreign minister. Now that they are leading Iran's nuclear policy tea—with, of course, the Supreme Leader's critical blessing (or at least acquiescence)—the challenge facing the administration is to negotiate a final deal that Zarif and his allies can defend as a reasonable compromise without provoking retaliation from either domestic hard-line opponents or those in the U.S. and the Middle East who still think that Iran's total capitulation is a feasible goal.From that perspective, not only would a breakdown of negotiations fail to ensure that Iran does not build a nuclear bomb—something Iran says it is not doing and some U.S. intelligence officials publicly have said they don't think it is doing—but it also would harm the prospects of Iranians who seek democratic reform, many of them at the risk of their lives or imprisonment. It's not only this cohort of Democratic senators who want to give the finger to diplomacy. Some Democrats in the House have joined Republicans in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in which they "urge you and your colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly to continue consideration of rigorous Iran sanctions legislation." That legislation—S. 1881, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013—has plenty wrong with it. But, as I've noted before, the worst is in Section 2 (b) (5): if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existenceStripped to its essentials, what this means is that if Israel decides to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran strikes back, the U.S. would be committed to use military force against Iran. Utterly upside-down. Patricia Zengerle and Timothy Gardner at Reuters report that setting Jan. 20 as the start date for Iran's freezing of most of its nuclear development while talks are underway on a permanent agreement may reduce the drive for more sanctions. Perhaps. That would certainly be welcome news. But the two reporters don't really make a good case for it, and there's no evidence that Sen. Bob Menendez, who introduced the new sanctions legislation, has given up trying to add to the 58 senators who are co-sponsoring the bill with him. ••• ••• David Harris Gershon has a post about this subject here. Karen from Maui has one here. |
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)