Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Call Cantwell Today – Last Vote on Iran to Vetoproof!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 1, 2015 at 7:32 pm #818340
wakefloodParticipantHey all, we’re down to one commit to make the Iran resolution veto proof. Cantwell hasn’t announced. Let’s all call her to day and make her (and peace) the big winner.
202-224-3441
I’ll go look for her local office number but don’t wait.
September 1, 2015 at 9:21 pm #827498
dhgParticipantThanks for the reminder. I posted it on my facebook page after calling. (ps: got voicemail, they’re getting a lot of calls)
September 1, 2015 at 10:45 pm #827499
JTBParticipantmight check Maria’s Facebook page. Anti deal folks making posts.
September 1, 2015 at 11:49 pm #827500
wakefloodParticipantWill post there shortly. And hope you all do as well. Thanks for noting, JTB.
September 2, 2015 at 2:52 pm #827501
JoBParticipantSeptember 2, 2015 at 2:55 pm #827502
JTBParticipantLooks like the Twitchy folks are zeroing in on her website. Interesting how many of the complaints about the agreement are actually misrepresentations. The possible 24 day delay to gain onsite access to new locations is the biggest one.
Even with Barbara Mikulski supposedly providing the threshold vote to make it veto proof, I think it’s important to have as much support as possible. So please contact Maria’s office.
September 2, 2015 at 3:47 pm #827503
SmittyParticipantWhat is incorrect about the potential 24-day delay to access to undeclared sites?
September 2, 2015 at 4:17 pm #827504
JoBParticipanti messaged her on facebook and called her office.
my message…
it’s time to stop talking about the better deal some people think we could have gotten and move now to protect the next generation of kids from yet another meaningless war.
September 2, 2015 at 4:21 pm #827505
JoBParticipantsmitty
you aren’t going to like this site.. but fast forward through the paragraphs that you think are demeaning to the heart of the matter..
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9176415/iran-deal-inspections-24-days
September 2, 2015 at 5:39 pm #827506
JTBParticipantSmitty,
Many of the anti-deal posters represent the 24 day period as applying to all sites; that’s not accurate. Known or declared sites are under constant and immediate surveillance.
The issue is whether the U.S. (or another country) come to suspect that there are new secret sites and how it gets access to them. Twenty-four days isn’t actually a codified number. It’s the sum of the schedule in which the U.S. or another country can demand access, have the Iranians respond and then, if there’s no agreement, have the question submitted to a panel which the U.S. will almost certainly command a majority on. The total is 24 days.
You’re no doubt familiar with the highly technical discussions about the radioactive residue that would linger even after a clean up of a site actively working with nuclear materials.
While I haven’t seen this point addressed, I would certainly imagine a suspected site would remain under watch from near-by locations to monitor suspicious movement of materials. At least I’d pursue that angle if a deliberate delay is employed.
From what I’ve heard, the only real opportunity for secret work that could possibly be undetected by delayed inspections would be development of some of the non-nuclear resources like centrifuges. Any use of nuclear materials will most likely leave a detectable trace.
September 2, 2015 at 7:32 pm #827507
SmittyParticipantThanks to you both.
I get the politics/nuance around that statement, but my question was:
“What is incorrect about the potential 24-day delay to access to undeclared sites?”
After reading, it appears the answer is nothing, right?
September 2, 2015 at 7:55 pm #827508
JTBParticipantAs I said, Smitty, a number of the posters were representing that it applied to all sites, not simply undeclared. And this is incorrect. No nuance. Deliberate misrepresentation or poor attention to details which are represented as critical. Hard to determine. But still wrong.
September 2, 2015 at 8:32 pm #827509
JoBParticipantSmitty..
saying that there is a potential 24-day delay to access to undeclared sites in Iran is equivalent to saying that there will be a tornado in Seattle.
yes, it’s possible.. but i would hold off on the extra tornado insurance if i were you
and yes, i do know that tornadoes have touched down in Seattle…
September 3, 2015 at 7:51 am #827510
JanSParticipantMs. Mikulski stepped up today…too bad, Tom Cotton …
September 3, 2015 at 2:52 pm #827511
JoBParticipantMaria and other democrats can still stand up and boost the number to one that will prevent this public embarrassment from ever reaching the floor of the Senate.
Call her. trust me.. those trying to undermine America’s ability to negotiate international treaties are taking the time to call.
September 3, 2015 at 2:55 pm #827512
JoBParticipantSmitty..
if i were you i would make the call to Cantwell urging her to back our president simply to prevent the Republicans in the Senate from setting another precedent that will bite them in the ass.
they thought abusing filibuster and raising the numbers needed to bring a bill to the floor was a great idea until democrats threatened to use it against them.
there is far too much short term thinking going on in America.
September 3, 2015 at 5:36 pm #827513
maplesyrupParticipantI’ve been thinking about Cantwell’s opposition to the deal and was reminded of her pro-Iraq war vote.
Despite widespread opposition among her consituents, she voted for the war and nevertheless was re-elected. There were no consequences for that vote because the state is solidly Democratic and won’t vote for a Republican who is going to vote for war, and possibly other things the Democrats hate.
Perhaps she has some personal opinions but I think it’s more that her position is more precarious than Patty Murray’s and therefore she has to appeal somewhat to the non-Democrats or hawkish Independents to stay in office.
Thinking about how politics work, I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point she was told, “go ahead and vote against the deal, we will get the veto power done without you.”
And don’t be surprised if she continues to be against the deal no matter what kinds of calls and letters she gets. Didn’t make a difference with the Iraq war.
September 3, 2015 at 6:21 pm #827514
wakefloodParticipantWell, it’s pretty obvious that a LOT of vote swapping/negotiating has been going on for this. And yes, I believe she has pressure to vote no and has been looking for a way to not commit unless she absolutely had to. And now she doesn’t, so her cover is intact.
She’s hardly what one would call a vocal leader on most issues so her silence on this isn’t necessarily unexpected.
Will it hurt her when/if she votes no? Likely not, as you suggest as she has walked a middle ground for years and doesn’t have anyone nipping at her heels with a bigger progressive following and anywhere near her $ bankroll.
She’s the Scoop Jackson to Murray’s Maggie. They play it down the middle. Which, in today’s environment means they’re Clinton D’s. Soft progressive as a demeanor but triangulate whenever you have to.
September 7, 2015 at 8:12 am #827515
HMC RichParticipantCall me crazy but the speeches by the Supreme Leader, Head of the Revolutionary Guard calling for death to the U.S. And Israel even before the ink was dry is extremely ominous. Since Hillary pushed Obama to take down Quadaffi (while being egged on by England and France) the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean is worsening. These anti war Democrats F$&ked Up. So why in the world should we trust these Religious Fanatics? BTW – Hillary voted for the war (Remember!).
September 7, 2015 at 7:37 pm #827516
wakefloodParticipantWait…wha??
September 8, 2015 at 1:24 am #827517
JoBParticipantHillary isn’t in the Senate any more so her vote won’t count.
September 8, 2015 at 4:50 pm #827518
wakefloodParticipantAnd here we sit with Cantwell as the last undecided holdout. Really? Nice leadership, Maria. Remind me to ask who your primary opponent is and do some serious thinking about him/her.
September 8, 2015 at 8:02 pm #827519
JTBParticipantHere’s the reply I received from Maria’s office on 9/4. I know she seems a little wonky, but I’m surprised by the comment indicating she’s still studying the provisions of the agreement. Or is that simply a different way of saying “no comment?” :-d
Dear Mr. B…,
Thank you for contacting me regarding United States foreign policy toward Iran. I appreciate hearing from you about this important matter.
On July 14, 2015, negotiators for the United States, Iran, and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany (the “P5+1”) announced a final agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear research and require inspections of all nuclear facilities to ensure that they do not pursue a nuclear weapon. In exchange, the United States and the P5+1 agreed to lift certain targeted sanctions on Iran.
On May 7, 2015, the Senate passed H.R. 1191, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. This legislation requires that the President submit the text of any nuclear agreement with Iran to Congress for a 30 day review period prior to waiving sanctions on Iran. If during that time both houses of Congress pass legislation disapproving the deal, the President would be prevented from waiving those sanctions passed into law by Congress. Now that an agreement has been reached, I am committed to studying each provision carefully before voting on it.
I remain very concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, and I remain focused on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. I have supported the strong sanctions that have gotten us to the interim agreement. In 2012, I worked to successfully pass strong bipartisan sanctions law to expose entities illegally involved with Iran’s oil trade so they can be held accountable (P.L. 112-158). Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to monitor these developments closely.
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
September 9, 2015 at 1:01 am #827520
JoBParticipantNo comment ;-)
September 9, 2015 at 1:54 am #827521
metrognomeParticipantHMC Rich – when you referred to ‘Religious Fanatics’, if you were referring to congressional Republicans, I wholeheartedly concur with that label.
Don’t forget, Bush43 lied.
As you seem to be channeling Dick Cheney in totally absolving the Bush43 regime of any responsibility for the current situation in the world (Hillary’s responsible for the immigrant crisis? really?), you probably don’t want to click on this link to a video put out by the White House …
funny how Republicans: a) never channel Colin Powell; and, b) are not investigating Colin Powell for using a private e-mail server when he was SOS.
It’s also odd that conservatives never raise the issue of Israel’s stockpile of nukes (estimated at 50 or more but no one knows for sure cuz the Israelis won’t talk specifics.)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.