Rachel Maddow sacrifices her credibility to defend IranScam – YouTube
Rachel Maddow sacrifices her credibility to defend IranScam – YouTube.
Maddow purposefully distorts the intent and the effect of the bill in the Senate.
The bill strengthens Obama’s negotiating position by making clear to Teheran the cost of violating the terms of the agreement. It has NO impact if there are no violations.
Maddow says outright that it is an attempt to force the US into another war.
Huh?
Oh, right… WH Talking point.
For good measure she stresses that he bill is the result of “outside groups” like (surprise !) AIPAC.
(Those dirty Jews are trying to force America into another war for their benefit…)
Say it ain’t so, Rachel…. Say it ain’t so.
JW
_______________________________________________________________________________
In a show of defiance to President Obama, 13 Democratic Senators joined 13 Republicans in introducing a new Iranian sanctions bill that includes language forcing the US to support Israel in the event they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The president has threatened to veto the bill, and it is uncertain if Majority Leader Harry Reid will even allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote.
Republican Mark Kirk is leading the charge.
Associated Press:
“Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table,” said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who spearheaded the effort with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
Kirk called the draft law “an insurance policy to defend against Iranian deception.”
The Obama administration has furiously lobbied Congress not to impose new sanctions, even on a conditional basis, saying the increased economic pressure could force Iran to withdraw from the negotiating process and strain ties between the United States and its key negotiating partners — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Washington is banking on these countries to persuade Tehran into accepting a final package that would ease trade, financial and oil restrictions if the Iranian government severely rolls back its uranium enrichment activity and other elements of its nuclear program.
Iran’s foreign minister also has said new sanctions could scuttle hopes of a diplomatic resolution. Iran maintains its program is solely for peaceful energy production and medical research purposes, but the United States and many other countries harbor severe doubts. Israel is perhaps most adamant in insisting Iran’s true intentions are to develop an atomic weapons arsenal.
The White House said it didn’t think the Senate bill would be enacted and didn’t think it should be enacted.
“We don’t want to see action that will proactively undermine American diplomacy,” press secretary Jay Carney told reporters.
The bill would require the administration to certify Iranian compliance with the terms of the interim agreement every 30 days.
Without that certification, the legislation would re-impose all sanctions that have been eased and put in place the new restrictions. Foreign companies and banks violating the bans would be barred from doing business in the United States.
Mark Dubowitz, a sanctions advocate at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the new economic penalties could cost Tehran $55 billion annually in lost exports of petroleum, fuel oil and other industrial products.
“This should be incentive enough for Iran, if it is serious about saving its economy from a deep recession, not to cheat on its nuclear commitments and to move quickly to conclude a final deal,” he said.
Beyond the economic measures, the bill includes potentially contentious language requiring strong American action if Israel decides to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has regularly issued such threats.
“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,” the bill states. It calls for “diplomatic, military and economic support” to Israel in such an eventuality.
Significantly, if 13 Democratic Senators were to support the bill, that would give the Senate an excellent chance of overriding any veto coming from the White House. But politics would almost certainly come into play, as some of those Democratic Senators would be under enormous pressure not to cut the legs off of Obama so early in his second term.
At the very least, this sends a strong message to the Iranians that at least some in Washington haven’t been bamboozled by the “moderate” President Rouhani. They are going to have to demonstrate with deeds, not words, their commitment to the agreement as well as their stated desire to conduct a “peaceful” nuclear program.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
December 20, 2013 at 6:39 PM
Rachel Madcow had absolutely no credibility to begin with. She’s a leftist MSNBC hack who relentlessly attacks the right. She’s nothing more that a female (questionable) Keith Olbermann. How anyone can take this hack seriously is beyond me.
December 21, 2013 at 2:02 AM
boy Steve you and I are on the same page on this issue of Iranian nukes . these leftist just want to kiss irans ass .they will be the first to cry when iran nukes N.Y or Washington. Are they too stupid to know iran is only buying time with these so called talks..I email Menendez all the time telling him to keep up the good work even though I am a republican voter .He is one senator who won”t let iran get away with their lies .
December 21, 2013 at 5:29 AM
Living only 30 miles or so from the Gulf of Mexico, I do not relish the idea of an Iranian vessel chugging around with a nuclear sword hanging over my head.
December 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM
According to our left wing friends within three years Iran will be producing ICBMs capable of reaching the eastern seaboard of the United States and their nosecones will be filled with water balloons. People are Maddow are pathetic.
December 21, 2013 at 5:22 AM
…and their trajectories will have the appearance of rainbows with unicorns happily hopping about. 🙂
December 21, 2013 at 12:27 AM
How stupid can Rachel Madcow get?
Were we not told by the Obavez desastministration that in order to prevent a war sanctions were put in place?
Now those who are demanding sanctions are suddenly war mongers?
The logic of the left is screwed up beyond repair.
US senators want sanctions if Iran is not keeping its part of the deal.
Now, Rachel-bullshit-spewing-Madcow, tell me, if this is intractable and the Iranians refuse to honor the deal, what can the US do to force them to do so?
Yeah, right, the US can start a war with Iran or use, lo and behold, SANCTIONS.
Were we not told that it were the sanctions that brought the mullahs to the negotiations in the first place?
Now the threat of sanctions will drive them away?
Either left wing lunatics like her are not capable of logical thinking and of being consistent or they are totally dishonest and spout whatever serves their cause, no matter how nonsensical that is.
Rachel, stop yelling your bullshit at us.
David M. Weinberg describes this madness best.
Washington’s sanction contradictions
by David M. Weinberg
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6721
The Obama administration’s attitude on sanctions against Iran has been and continues to be riddled with contradictions. One day, it opposes sanctions; the next, it brags about them. One day, it eases up on sanctions; the next, it claims to be reinforcing them. One day, it says sanctions will force Iran to give up its nuclear program; the next, it says delaying sanctions will make Iran more likely to give up its nuclear program.
Let’s review the administration’s tortured and convoluted path to sanctions:
1. In the beginning, Congress had to coerce the Obama administration into sanctioning Iran. The president’s team bucked against successive congressional efforts to ramp up sanctions against Iran in the oil, banking, and shipping sectors. Congress dragged a kicking and screaming administration into eventual support for sanctions.
In fact, the administration only warmed to sanctions when it realized that upping such measures against Iran was one way to buy time and prevent Israel from attacking Iran.
2. Then, behind everybody’s back, the administration secretly eased up on enforcing the hard-won sanctions, as it conducted months of under-the-radar talks with representatives of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This was even before Hassan Rouhani was elected as the new Iranian president.
3. More recently, U.S. President Barack Obama justified the goodies (reductions in several different types of sanctions) given to Iran in Geneva by arguing that “sanctions relief” would create moderate Iranians. He said that the let-up in sanctions would create a “political constituency” within Iran for nuclear concessions.
For most Mideast observers, in Israel and elsewhere, this is counterintuitive and nonsensical. Who really believes that alleviating the sanctions pressure will make Iran more (rather than less) amenable to giving up its military nuclear effort?
Especially when considering Iran is getting much more sanction relief than the administration was first willing to admit to. The entire regime of sanctions could effectively melt away as the international business community realizes that Washington’s heart is no longer in them.
4. Under withering criticism from Congress for the sellout in Geneva, the administration announced this week that while it planned to ease some sanctions against Iran as per the Geneva deal, it would act to expand the list of businesses targeted for prosecution for doing business in still prohibited areas. In other words, the administration says it will increase its sanction enforcement efforts.
I’m not sure this counts as scaling up enforcement, or scaling down the easing up of enforcement it secretly put into place over the past year.
Confusing, isn’t it?
In any case, the Iranians loudly objected to this (which is what the administration was hoping for). Not only are the Iranians holding Washington to its promise not to impose any new sanctions; they also clearly expect Washington to shy away from enforcement of existing sanctions.
5. Looking ahead, we must ask: What if the P5+1 is unable to reach an agreement with Tehran on a permanent accord six months from now? What if the talks fail? Well, Obama says sanctions will be reimposed and additional sanctions could be considered as well.
But just who determines the “failure” of these talks? I bet that the administration would never admit to a breakdown or a failure of the talks, but would rather claim that negotiations were ongoing. It is highly unlikely that the administration will declare its treasured gambit for détente with Iran a failure. And if there is no “failure,” there will be no renewed or expanded sanctions.
And there you have it: the rise and fall of the sanctions effort.
December 21, 2013 at 2:11 AM
Artaxes, excellent comment ! obozo does not want to offend his Iranian buddies he rather sell the US and Israel out first .
December 23, 2013 at 5:03 AM
“Say it isn’t so, Rachel.” – JW
Sorry, Joe. It’s true.
(Disclaimer: no pure-hearted libs or right-wing whackos were harmed during this post.)
December 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM
???