Subscribe via RSS Feed

Deal

[ 219 ] November 23, 2013 |

And so this happened. Fact sheet here. Whatever the results, almost certainly better than a) nothing and b) bombing.

And this, of course:

Comments (219)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. efgoldman says:

    In a sensible political system, Corny would be forced to resign because of abject stupidity.

    • efgoldman says:

      Cornyn. Unintentional typo, not an adjective.

    • Larry says:

      Box Turtle Cornyn, who warned federal judges to not be so judgmental or they may force someone to kill them. You beat me to his stupidity. I was going to say that the Tea Party will vote him out not because they see him as RINO but because it’s so easy to see how stupid he is. Cornyn is an insult to Tea Party intelligence. !

    • jim, some guy in iowa says:

      seems to me in a sensible political system people that dumb couldnt get elected dogcatcher

    • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

      Just remember, he’s Texas’s least objectionable US Senator!

      • Manny Kant says:

        Texas’s least objectionable senator has been getting worse and worse over the past 50 years or so. In the 60s, it was Ralph Yarborough, who was genuinely liberal. Then it was Lloyd Bentsen. Then it was Kay Bailey Hutchison. Now it’s John Cornyn.

      • Hogan says:

        Shirley you mean “less objectionable.”

    • Alan Tomlinson says:

      With respect to stupidity, and also with respect to all who don’t appreciate it, there are a great many stupid people in the world–Einstein argued that stupidity was infinite. Democracy, representative and otherwise, requires the stupid to have the franchise and if they’re going to vote, they’re going to elect others who are stupid. Personally, I find it tremendously frustrating, but there it is. I can only hope that people of a progressive bent will continue to help improve education so that people will get smarter. Until then, we wait, and suffer.

      Cheers,

      Alan Tomlinson

      • DocAmazing says:

        Ah, but there are varieties of stupidity that are merely amusing or entertaining. Every now and then one gets a Dan Quayle, who (with the exception of championing Judge Manion) was harmless but diverting.

      • UserGoogol says:

        In theory, I’d say a major selling point of representative democracy is to allow representativeness without stupidity: people vote for politicians who they agree with ideologically but who are more talented in the skills necessary for making law. But ideology and stupidity can get entangled, (with causality pointing in both directions) so that ideal can only go so far.

  2. Anthony says:

    Did he not know they had been negotiating for a while?

    Also slightly OT but CNN had Frank Gaffney on as a middle east expert today to talk about the possible deal and I felt very vindicated in my decision to not take CNN seriously as a news source.

  3. Joe twelve-pack says:

    Anybody seen howiter-explosion-guy on CNN? He’s flushed, speaking rapidly, nervous and bothered. I love it. BHO has made his share of mistakes but no doubt this is gonna stick in Bibi’s craw. It’s a start.

  4. Surreal American says:

    So I guess in Greater Wingnuttia, Obama pivots back from being Hitler to being Chamberlain again.

  5. Chet Murthy says:

    Barack, you’re such a hypocrite. You think dealin with Iran, who don’t even -have- a bomb, will bring peace to the Mideast? When Israel have had …. what? hundreds for decades? Really, dude. You need to step up your game and get Dimona shut down.

  6. anthrofred says:

    This is good news for Roy Edroso’s upcoming column, that’s for sure. I bet the freeper servers are overheating right now.

  7. DW-Nominate says:

    Amazing what the WH will do to distract attention from Iranian nuclea–oh crap.

  8. West of the Cascades says:

    John Cornyn is pretty much a useless sack of pus. The GOP aren’t even bothering to act like adults any more. Time was, the opposition party would greet a deal like this with cautious respect (not undermining the nation’s foreign policy and everything).

    • Warren Terra says:

      Or maybe they’d greet it with grave concern. But they wouldn’t treat it as a distraction and a joke!

      • Mike G says:

        I recall Bill Clinton’s cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda in 1998 that missed killing Bin Laden by about a hour. The Repukes screamed that Bill was hyping the threat of terrorism and just trying to distract the country from the REAL important issue, which was investigating his blowjob from Monica Lewinsky.
        And of course the Republicans were right as usual. History showed that the blowjob destroyed America, while no-one heard from that Bin Laden guy ever again.

        • Timb says:

          Down the memory hole. They called it wagging the dog and started, and then on 9/12/01 to blame Clinton for doing nothing. Meanwhile, their current President’s entire foreign policy consisted of missile defense negotiations

    • Shakezula says:

      I bet that before Thanksgiving some Deep Thinker on the right will announce Obama merely wants to lift the sanctions on Iran because he feels pity for his fellow Muslims.

      Speaking of Thanksgiving and wingnuts, I am looking forward to the annual outpouring of pandirectional dickhurt.

  9. Joe twelve-pack says:

    Sen. Graham sounds distraught, kind of sad. And is of course promising new sanctions in six months. Anybody care to guess what dirt foreign intelligence agencies have on him?

    • efgoldman says:

      Anybody care to guess what dirt foreign intelligence agencies the TeaHadis primarying Senator Huckleberry have on him?

      I have repaired your misapprehension.

  10. Shakezula says:

    That’s good news. I thought the bobbleheads on CNN were sounding rather more breathless than usual and assumed there’d been a disaster of some sort.

    As for the dipwad from Texas (No, not that one, the other one. No. No. … Yes. Him.) I enjoy a fine glass of wingnut tears as much as the next person, but I still think it is a pity the good Lord didn’t see fit to make something useful from all that surplus skin around Crony’s dick.

    • Mike G says:

      the dipwad from Texas

      You’ll need to be a lot more specific.

    • Anonymous says:

      Old joke: a mohel (Jewish circumcisionist) retires after 50 years. Having saved all the foreskins, he takes them to a leather shop. “What would you like me to make?” the leather man asks. “I don’t know – surprise me.” The leatherman thinks a minute, then says, “I have something spectacular in mind. Come back in a month!”

      One month passes, and the old mohel is full of anticipation. He goes to the leather shop almost quivering with excitement. The leatherman goes in the back, and emerges with…a wallet.

      The old mohel is almost crushed with disappointment, then furious. “WHAT? 50 years of materials, and THIS is all you could do?!?!”

      The leatherman protests, “Wait wait wait!”

      “When you rub it, it turns into a briefcase!”

  11. Warren Terra says:

    I never sex the chickens I cook (and in the state I purchase them, it would require genotyping), but they sure do come out succulent and juicy. I’d offer you a recipe for your gamebirds, JenBob, but you’re not trusted with sharp implements. Hence the pancakes.

  12. Bijan Parsia says:

    I’m really happy!

    It’s not ideal and doesn’t go far enough in lifting the sanctions…but progress! If this leads to full unwinding of the sanctions that’ll be so great.

    • GoDeep says:

      Doesn’t go far enough in lifting sanctions??? They haven’t even slowed down enrichment yet. Trust but verify! And remember N. Korea!

      If BO & the West manages to get Iran to stop progress toward the bomb it’ll be a minor miracle. God bless ‘em.

      • Bijan Parsia says:

        Yes. It does not go far enough in lifting sanctions.

        I fine with Iran having a bomb. I’m also fine with them not having one.

        To date, afaict, they have not been working directly toward a bomb since 2003.

        Iran has suffered far more at the (often indirect) hand of the US than they inflicted anywhere.

        So, yes. It does not go nearly far enough. But it is a step.

  13. shah8 says:

    Not too many details. Without them, it’s hard to know just how much of a “breakthrough” it is, or whether key players will go along with it.

  14. Rusty Spikefist says:

    Truly cannot understand why the Iranians would agree to such a deal. Seems to convert Iran into a permanent colony of Israel and the US in return for almost nothing. What am I missing?

    • sphysicist says:

      I haven’t been following super closely, but I believe that the current Iranian president ran on a platform of improving relations with the West, so this might be a response to internal pressures.

      …and, you know, they’re getting a couple of billion dollars’ worth of lowered sanctions, and a better prospect of reducing sanctions further; I think this probably reduces the probability of war; and I haven’t actually heard of any provisions inviting American or Israeli colonists to set themselves up on the land.

      • J. Otto Pohl says:

        While I agree with most of this post the idea that a colony or in present day circumstances neo-colony needs colonists is completely false. There were not many British colonists in India and other than Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, and Kenya the number of European colonists in Africa was very small. Certainly, the Gold Coast and Nigeria were colonies of extraction not of settlement. Gabon is basically a neo-colony of France, but it does not have a large population of French settlers.

    • efgoldman says:

      What am I missing?

      The possible lifting of billions and billions in economic sanctions that are really raising havoc with their economy.

    • Bijan Parsia says:

      Seems to convert Iran into a permanent colony of Israel and the US

      Such a colony that Israel (and Saudi Arabia) are strongly against it?

      C’mon dude. No need to slip Israel in there. Lazy at best and it goes way down from there.

      The terms of the deal are minor on both sides: It’s mostly suspension of progress on the Iranian side and only around $7 billion effectively released by the sanctions.

      But it is a deal. Where there’s one, there can be more. Compared with another 6 months of sanctions or even strengthened sanctions, it’s a great move. A first step only, but a step none the less.

      • Rusty Spikefist says:

        (1) None of the trade restrictions on oil are being lifted, and those are the ones that really matter.

        (2) Iran has every right to refine uranium for peaceful purposes, and has a lot of very good economic reasons for wanting to do so. It’s outrageous that they’re expected to renounce the right to utilize their own resources as they see fit in return for lifting of a fraction of the criminal blockade that’s been imposed on them by Israel and the West — and a very small fraction indeed.

        • Just a Rube says:

          First off, leave Israel out of this; they’re not part of the deal and Bibi hates it.

          Second off, restricting certain enrichment and nuclear activities is a far cry from turning Iran into a colony, especially since it lets the Iranian economy get a badly needed injection of foreign currency.

          You can claim Iran has every right to refine Uranium but it’s understandable that everyone else suspects it of being cover for a nuclear program, and the Iranian insistence on this point (and of planning to enrich uranium past the point needed for mere nuclear power) doesn’t really help things.

          As for why the Iranian government made this deal? They get a quick boost of currency, don’t give up anything irreplaceable except time, and can show their domestic audience that this approach is yielding concessions from the West, unlike their predecessor. Plus, it lays the groundwork for future deals (they really didn’t want this meeting to end with “no agreement could be reached” headlines).

          • Tybalt says:

            The real Rubes are those who wish to believe that Iran’s program is not directed at weapons development.

            • Dilan Esper says:

              Yeah, of course it is.

              Personally, I have basically stopped believing in nonproliferation. The bomb is a totally reasonable insurance policy in a world where the United States government no longer respects national sovereignty. So I had no problem with Irab developing one.

              But come on! Of course that’s what they were doing! If a country wants “peaceful nuclear energy”, it doesn’t have to be done on the QT.

            • Bijan Parsia says:

              Eh.

              It’s undoubtably the case that Iran, like most countries, would like to have a bomb (in the sense that there’s a significant chunk of the power structure for it and most of the power structure would see having one as a win; and they’d be right to, for the most part).

              The IEAE reports no significant effort toward a bomb per se since 2003. (There’s some stuff about some explosion testing, but I’m unclear exactly how that figures in.) AFAICT, this is the consensus view. There’s been no diversion of nuclear material. The IEAE won’t speak with full confidence because the Additional Protocol is not in place.

              Obviously, with each increase in e.g., enrichment capability, Iran is closer to being able to build a bomb.

        • cpinva says:

          “Iran has every right to refine uranium for peaceful purposes, and has a lot of very good economic reasons for wanting to do so.”

          yes, they do. conversely, they have every right to agree not to, for whatever reasons they deem worthwhile to do so.

          “It’s outrageous that they’re expected to renounce the right to utilize their own resources as they see fit in return for lifting of a fraction of the criminal blockade that’s been imposed on them by Israel and the West — and a very small fraction indeed.”

          as iran has its rights, so to do all other sovereign nations. among those is the right to decide who they will and won’t trade with. that decision is no more outrageous, as an exercise of sovereign rights, than iran’s decision to utilize their own resources as they see fit. to assert otherwise is to claim that iran possesses rights, as a sovereign nation, greater than any other nation reasonably possesses. just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it not so.

          • shah8 says:

            Ok:

            1) Iran’s “rights” as one might aknowledge, are based on multilateral treaties that Iran has signed (and hey, Israel has not), and Iran has very strong legal claims to the activities they have so far pursued.

            2) I do strongly suspect that a major motivation on the part of the US was the long term untenability of the sanctions regime against Iran, particularly the sanctions that act on third parties based effectively on laws they have not agreed to.

            • Random says:

              1) Iran has no right to build nuclear weapons with no economic repercussions.

              2) The major motivation of the US is to not have Iran building nuclear weapons. And the only reason Iran is making this deal in the first place is because they clearly do think the sanctions are tenable.

              • Bijan Parsia says:

                While Iran has, I believe signed the non-proliferation treaty, is there any evidence that they are building a bomb or otherwise violating the treaty?

                If not, then they shouldn’t be subject to act of war level sanctions

                If they withdrew from the treaty and explicitly pursued nukes, I still don’t see how they are reasonably subject to act of war, wide spectrum sanctions. Clearly, Iran is being treated as esp irrational or dangerous. But even NK can be dealt with. And that regime is far more whacked out.

                • cpinva says:

                  “While Iran has, I believe signed the non-proliferation treaty, is there any evidence that they are building a bomb or otherwise violating the treaty?”

                  don’t know, because, up to this point, iran has refused access to those facilities, of people in a position to determine if they are or not. while it’s certainly their right to do so, it should come as no great surprise that, by doing so, they increase suspicions of exactly what it is they’re doing in those facilities.

                  hey, if they have nothing to hide, they shouldn’t have a problem with people taking a look, right?

                  gee, where have I heard that before………..?

                • GoDeep says:

                  It certainly *seems* as if they want to build a bomb. Let’s pray they don’t.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  Let’s just say that I’m not going to be won over by your fear of an Iranian bomb and leave it at that.

                  As someone with family there, I’m really not going to take well insistence that sanctions are good.

        • Random says:

          1) This agreement specifically allows for more sanctions to be lifted in 6 months if this works out.

          2) The deal allows for limited enrichment for peaceful purposes, it only prohibits weapons-grade and weaponizable enrichment.

        • Bijan Parsia says:

          Again, Israel is opposed to this deal and “permanent” = 6 months. Thus, the deal, in itself, just does not make Iran a permanent colony of Israel (even in part). Israel’s bad behaviour at the moment wrt Iran lies primarily in sabotaging these talks. Saudi Arabia is doing the very same thing.

          Second, while I agree that Iran being in this position is outrageous, so what. They are in this position. They need to get out of it. That there is a deal at all is a huge step. That it cuts off even harsher sanctions from Congress is good. That Iran is willing to make these huge concessions is amazing. It’s more amazing that they are doing so when the US is willing to accept then even preliminarily.

          These are very obvious facts.

        • Bijan Parsia says:

          There’s a very good reason for Iran to go along with this deal: To strengthen the hand of American moderates, which is pretty much the Obama administration.

  15. Anon says:

    That tweet is not really an assertion – it’s just an attempt to keep talking about what Cornyn wants to talk about. And when folks repeat the tweet, it only helps Cornyn. How about just ignoring him instead?

    • Scott S. says:

      1. Because it hurts us to ignore stupid people saying stupid things in the service of stupid agendas.

      2. Because you don’t get rid of Republican cockroaches by pretending they’re not there. Turn on the kitchen light and start stomping.

      • cpinva says:

        “2. Because you don’t get rid of Republican cockroaches by pretending they’re not there. Turn on the kitchen light and start stomping.”

        personally, I prefer a flamethrower, but that’s just me.

    • Shakezula says:

      And when folks repeat the tweet, it only helps Cornyn.

      No, it doesn’t. “Repeating stupid things the opposition says” is what we call effective political strategy.

      • anthrofred says:

        Especially with the party of Calhoun (and Poe), where the subtext is text and the text is insane.

      • Mr. Madame Psychosis says:

        +1

        Can’t Plus One this one enough. So, +1. The reflexive tribal empty cynicism needs to be pointed out everywhere it happens.

        These mindless memes create a detour for the lightly engaged to skirt around topics that may need to be discussed in detail by everyone really.

        I mean, hooray! Nuke Treaty, Healthcare – things to talk seriously about. But Cornyn vomits forth — Look!! Obama is manipulating global events !! And for nothing more than to distract you people from irrationally hating and obstructing him on everything from the ACA to long-overdue arms treaties. This crap needs to be exposed and ridiculed whenever it’s kicked out there.

    • Rigby Reardon says:

      Because we have 40 years of history that demonstrates conclusively that ignoring them doesn’t work.

  16. jazzbumpa says:

    I posted this on FB:

    I can’t wait to see how the right wing puts a negative spin on this.

    You know it’s coming.

    Probably on tomorrow’s talking head shows.

    Epic failure of imagination on my part.

  17. DocAmazing says:

    Between this and filibuster reform, I’m starting to feel the stirrings of mild optimism.

  18. The prophet Nostradumbass says:

    Senator Walnuts must be crying into his pillow tonight, as well.

  19. Mr. Madame Psychosis says:

    Now we all know that John Cornyn ain’t no tweeter. When does he have time between forcing poor women to term and snuffling for ACORNs in the ACA?

    This was posted by some Poli-Sci intern being (not) paid to monitor Twitter so the boss appears to be virtually relevant. Sure it helps him keep that 93.8% rating and maybe move up the polls to #1 Conservative Senator (if and when someone discovers Jim Risch actually doesn’t exist) but to us fully functioning human beings paying attention doesn’t it make him look more like just a blathering whack-job?

    It’s so conventionally vapid I’m inclined to believe the DNC has ex-ACORN inside his office running a false flag op.

  20. Manju says:

    face it… all of you were for the nuclear option before you were against it. how swiftly your boat changes directions.

    • Warren Terra says:

      Cute rhetorical idea, needs a little polishing.

      • Manju says:

        well, we right-minded folks are too focused on iran and the war on terror to worry about the polish, warren.

        • jackrabbitslim says:

          Do you mean the Polish?

          • Manju says:

            I mean, if Warren Terra has his way, its see you in the gulag next.

            • Manju thinks majority in the Senate goes against democracy as we know it. He’s a living testimonial to what J.S. Mill said about stupid people often being conservatives.

              • Manju says:

                Manju thinks majority in the Senate goes against democracy as we know it.

                Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

                But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

                • ChrisTS says:

                  Good grief.

                  1) The Constitution sets rules for more than simple majoritarian votes. The filibuster is not in the Constitution.

                  2) The Constitution provides protections for individuals and members of certain groups. It does not protect political views that cannot win votes. It certainly does not protect the wounded sensibilities of political losers.

                  3) If you really think majoritarian rule in one of our legislative bodies is going to lead to Hitler … you are flat out crazy.

                • Hogan says:

                  Manju is now quoting Robert Byrd from 2005 in the hopes of roping in people who missed his star turn on an earlier thread.

                  You’ve been Byrd-rolled.

                • Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

                  How is allowing a simple majority vote of the Senate to determine whether or not the President can have his nominees appointed to the courts and executive branch some sort of tyranny?

                  Can you show me where the filibuster in enshrined in the Constitution or any laws passed by Congress and signed into law by one of Obamas’ predecessors?

                  You’re way out of your league, Manju, unless you’re trolling here to get invited to write for Deadbreitbart.com

                • Hogan says:

                  And another one bites the dust.

                • Manju says:

                  How is allowing a simple majority vote of the Senate to determine whether or not the President can have his nominees appointed to the courts and executive branch some sort of tyranny?

                  Yes, Americans believe in majority rule, but we also believe in minority rights. Our liberties can be truly secure only in a forum of open debate where minority views can be freely discussed.

                  This threatens the rights to dissent, to unlimited debate and to freedom of speech. It starts with shutting off debate on judges, but it won’t end there. It could destroy the Senate’s very essence — the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.

                  To understand the danger, one needs to understand the Senate. The Framers created an institution designed not for speed or efficiency but as a place where mature wisdom would reside. They intended the Senate to be the stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny. But this legislative nuclear option would mute dissent and gag opposition voices.

                • efgoldman says:

                  Many times in our history….

                  Oh stop it already. How many fucking threads do you want to hijack in a weekend?

                • Manju says:

                  Oh stop it already. How many fucking threads do you want to hijack in a weekend?

                  Well, I wouldn’t have done it again had it not been for the fact that DA commented on that other thread, even after the byrd had flown the coup. You don’t always get two byrds in the hand.

                  Of course I support the end of the filibuster. Exposing byrd’s totally insane and racist 2005 defense of it was my way of celebrating.

                  As for my comment to begin this thread, I was just being punny.

                • Tom Servo says:

                  This is literally a copy-paste of his comment from the filibuster thread last Thursday. Either not clever enough to write a new comment to actually fit into the new comments context, or will keep pasting until someone applauds his brilliance. Either way, pathetic.

                • Manju says:

                  This is literally a copy-paste of his comment from the filibuster thread last Thursday. Either not clever enough to write a new comment to actually fit into the new comments context, or will keep pasting until someone applauds his brilliance.

                  The old comment was a copy-paste too. I didn’t write any of it:

                  http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/03/more_byrd_on_th.html

                  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×3206700

                • Our liberties can be truly secure only in a forum of open debate where minority views can be freely discussed.

                  A filibuster is the opposite of that, it’s the minority blocking the majority from taking action after an appropriate airing of both minority and majority views.

                  This threatens the rights to dissent, to unlimited debate and to freedom of speech. It starts with shutting off debate on judges, but it won’t end there. It could destroy the Senate’s very essence — the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.

                  According to the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to Advise and Consent to Federal appointments by the President. It says nothing about the filibuster. You evaded my question about the filibuster quiet ineptly.

                  To understand the danger, one needs to understand the Senate. The Framers created an institution designed not for speed or efficiency but as a place where mature wisdom would reside. They intended the Senate to be the stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny. But this legislative nuclear option would mute dissent and gag opposition voices.

                  I don’t think it eliminated debate before a vote to approve or turn down a Federal nominee. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

                  You have to defend the Constitution that is out there, not the one you wish you had were.

                  Read and learn.

                  So, not just a majority of the Senate could vote for this guy, it would have to be a super majority, as if he were a treaty or a constitutional amendment or something. And so, Richard Toronto, no
                  relation, waited month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month after month.
                  And then, finally, this spring, 17 months after he was first nominated, after he had been waiting almost a year and a half, they finally – eh, decided to put Richard Toronto`s nomination up for a vote in the United States Senate.

                  And do you want to know what the vote was?

                  The vote was 91-0. Zero votes against him. No Republicans had any problem with him whatsoever.

                  “We are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.”

                • Manju says:

                  A filibuster is the opposite of that, it’s the minority blocking the majority from taking action after an appropriate airing of both minority and majority views.

                  DA, you have got to be the stupidest person in the history of all the internets.

                  I would love to continue this delicious hoax, but even I can feel everyone else’s pain. As eveyone and their mother has pointed out a billion times, I am not the author to the comments in question.

                  So, who is?

                  Your former Senate Majority Leader.

                • The problem is, Manju that what Byrd said in 2005:

                  Yet, for the temporary goal of confirming a handful of objectionable judicial nominees, those pushing the nuclear option would callously trample on freedom of speech and debate.

                  Doesn’t apply in the current case, where the judges nominated by Obama weren’t objectionable to the Republicans per se, the vote on whether to nominate them or not was blocked, and not in the interest of free speech and debate.

                  Apples and oranges here, Manju, I’m sorry to poke holes in your attempt to use Byrd as supporting your POV, but then you never are dumber as when you try to show how smart you are.

                • Manju says:

                  The problem is, Manju that what Byrd said in 2005…Doesn’t apply in the current case,

                  Byrd’s interpretation of the Constitution and US History does not apply in either case, because it is delusional, racist, and ahistoric.

                  …in the current case…the judges nominated by Obama weren’t objectionable to the Republicans per se,

                  The judges were objectionableto the republicans because they are a bunch of extreme loonies.

                  the vote on whether to nominate them or not was blocked,

                  Republican would not allow a vote on Obama’s nominations. Ergo, the nuclear option.

                  and not in the interest of free speech and debate

                  .

                  Byrd said the nuclear option threatens the “Senate’s very essence — the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate.” It does not, not now and not then.

                  Just when i didn’t think you could get any stupider, you decide to defend the inane confederate ramblings of one of histories great civil rights villains. (Though, to be fair, he publicly repented that very year…telling us that, sometime in the 1980′s, after the death of his grandchild, he finally realized that black people love their children too).

        • tsam says:

          HAHA! Right-minded. Gud 1 bro.

    • Matt T. in New Orleans says:

      The fuck are you babbling about? This has nothing to do with how dead honkies acted fifty years ago.

    • Mr. Madame Psychosis says:

      Ran out of thread above, posting here –

      [...] They intended the Senate to be the stabilizer, the fence, the check on attempts at tyranny. [...]

      I always thought they intended the Senate to be a buffer between monied landowners and the common rabble, mainly for the purpose of keeping grease on the wheels of crony capitalism and such. I concede I was not there; I may be mistaken.

      And. Also. Too.

      [...] but as a place where mature wisdom would reside. [...]

      Isn’t ‘Mature wisdom’ more often than not badly cloaked Elitism?

  21. cpinva says:

    “Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care”

    really brilliant, if you think about it. making the world just a little bit of a safer and saner place, just to distract from helping millions of previously uninsured US citizens acquire decent, reasonably priced health insurance. that Obama is one damn devious Kenyan I tells ya!

  22. Thers says:

    I just hope this prevents Texas from ever acquiring nukes.

    Christ, what a nightmare THAT would be.

    • Shakezula says:

      For the love of the FSM’s only begotten son, do not give Texas any ideas.

      “Well it says right in the Amendment to the Constitution that we have the right to bear arms. Not just knives. Not just guns. Nukes are arms, so I get to have three. No six. No a dozen, I saw a brown guy at the local Krogers the other day.”

    • BigHank53 says:

      Shit, I think Texas should have all the nukes it wants.

      Just not any delivery vehicles. No missiles, planes, boats, trucks, cars, tractors, or riding lawnmowers. When 97% of their time is taken up with bicycling everywhere and subsistence farming, they’ll be a lot less inclined to talk smack about anything.

  23. digger says:

    Hopefully his next trick to distract us from the Obama-care roll-out, will be to fucking cure cancer.

    • JKTHs says:

      Oh cmon, that’s an easy pivot. Sure, there’s a new cancer drug but who’s gonna be able to afford it because CANCELLATION NOTICES!!!!

  24. Gwen says:

    Things I expect to hear over and over again:

    1. “The Jews are finally going to vote Republican in 2016!”

    Because the GOP has been saying this every year since forever, and evangelicals don’t understand why the majority of American Jews do not like them (or would be indifferent to Netanyahu’s braying).

    2. “Obama is selling us out to (Iranians, muslims generally, terrorists etc)!”

    Which isn’t true, of course, but assuming for the sake of argument that this is a marginally bad deal vis-a-vis U.S. interests in the middle east, this is probably still a good deal in that it helps us to ratchet down our commitments there and shift to the Far East/Pacific.

    • J. Otto Pohl says:

      1. The total Jewish vote is actually smaller than the Gay vote in terms of overall numbers in the US. It is only important in some of the larger states with lots of electoral votes. But, the real reason to court Jewish citizens is that as a group they tend to have an above average amount of disposable income they are willing to spend on political causes.

    • JL says:

      …and evangelicals don’t understand why the majority of American Jews do not like them (or would be indifferent to Netanyahu’s braying).

      And not only that, right-wing American Jews, or at least the ones who write political opinion pieces, don’t understand why the majority of American Jews don’t see eye to eye with them. Quite a few of the “This time the Jews will vote Republican, no really!” columns seem to come out of places like Commentary.

  25. Major Kong says:

    Quick! Time to move the goalpost! We can’t take yes for an answer or we might not get to have a war.

    • Shakezula says:

      Or just move to a new target. “Obama gave those sneaky SOBs in the Philippine Islands weather machines and they perfected a way to produce super hurricanes!”

      But I think enough time has passed on the Teahaddists’ time pieces to let them pretend Clinton was in office when North Korea started its latest nuclear shenangians. The GOP can bark aggressively at NK, which is sure to respond with freaky videos and the GOP can run to the Sunday talk shows and say “Oooo, did you hear what the evil Islamofascist NK said about Obama? Why is he letting them get away with that? He must be a chicken if he won’t fight! Bwak-bwak-bwak!” And so on.

      • Snarki, child of Loki says:

        So very true, what a perfect matchup: Norks and Teahaddi.

        If they were cats, you’d tie their tails together and toss ‘em over a clothsline, just to watch the fun.

        But they’re not, so other arrangements have to be made. I’m not sure what, but it probably involves a “monkey cage” and “super-glue”.

  26. DrDick says:

    John McCain has a sad and the entire rightwing foreign policy establishment is gnashing its teeth and rending its garments.

  27. Rarely Posts says:

    Honestly, I don’t know how anyone can compare President Obama’s foreign policy to President Bush II’s without reaching the obvious conclusion that Democrats can be (somewhat) trusted with foreign policy and Republicans not at all. It was interesting to watch Romney basically concede a lot of the foreign policy issues to Obama in the last election. I wonder if that trend will continue, or if conservatives will publicly re-embrace their neocon-crazy as the memory of Bush II fades.

    • Aimai says:

      The neocons, or their grandchildren, will never admit that the Democrats did anything right, ever. Their response will be, as others have said, the equivalent of watching Obama walk on water and complaining that he probably can’t swim.

    • cpinva says:

      when your entire foreign policy agenda consists of “lets go invade foreign countries, kill their citizens and steal their resources”, it should come as no surprise to you, that most people view you as some sci-fi, alien “swarm of locusts” race, going from one planet to the next, leaving each an empty shell in their wake. an alien race which needs to be wholly and utterly destroyed, not allowed to assume the reins of power.

      I could be wrong.

  28. Anonymous says:

    The best aspect of this? The stories emerging about how the US got the deal done by keeping Israel in the dark. From TPM:

    “It was only after that Obama-Rouhani phone call that the U.S. began informing allies of the secret talks with Iran, the U.S. officials said.

    Obama handled the most sensitive conversation himself, briefing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a Sept. 30 meeting at the White House. He informed Netanyahu only about the two summer meetings, not the March talks, in keeping with the White House’s promise only to tell allies about any discussions with Iran that were substantive.

    The U.S. officials would not describe Netanyahu’s reaction. But the next day, he delivered his General Assembly speech, blasting Rouhani as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and warning the U.S. against mistaking a change in Iran’s tone with an actual change in nuclear ambitions. The Israeli leader has subsequently denounced the potential nuclear agreement as the “deal of the century” for Iran.”

    Beep beep, Bibi.

  29. tsam says:

    I suppose bibi is furiously drawing cartoon bombs all over his Peechee from a fetal position.

  30. Steve S. says:

    Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care

    I hope the Obamacare situation becomes so dire that he is forced to strike a peace deal every day of the week to take our minds off of it.

  31. herr doktor bimler says:

    The Goofle informs me that Iran Is Taking Advantage Of Weak Obama Administration (the role of the other nations which negotiated the deal is not clear).
    If someone really believed that, you’d expect them to accept some responsibility for all their efforts to weaken the Obama administration IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPHECY.

  32. zolltan says:

    I really really don’t understand the Israeli response, can any of you explain what is going on? It’s not that I think highly of Netanyahu’s government, but being sincere in the desire to not have your geopolitical enemy obtain nuclear weapons is a pretty low bar to clear. I believe Israel sincerely doesn’t want Iran nukes.

    So what gives, then? I understand that the deal doesn’t totally dismantle the Iranian nuclear program or change the Iranian regime, but they’re not crazy, such a deal is obviously impossible, so complaining that this isn’t it is dumb. Is this not better for Israel, security-wise, than the status quo? Are they secretly happy that the deal exists but PRing away to push the US to be more hawkish? Or were they hoping for a pre-emptive US bombing campaign against Iran and are afraid that any signs of comity make that less likely? What is their justification for saying the world is more dangerous today? Iran has been engaging in a suite of various nuclear activities, and will now stop doing only some of those things. Isn’t that by definition better for Israel than a lack of accord, where Iran would be continuing to engage in all of them?

    • Hogan says:

      I think this comment applies to Israel as well, which is why the deal is Bad For The Jews Netanyahu.

    • Steve S. says:

      There are a couple of standard interpretations. One is that as long as attention is on Iran then it is not on the unresolved Palestinian situation. The other is that every country needs an existential enemy to keep the rubes properly terrified, and with most of the countries in the region having either a formal or de facto peace with Israel then Iran is that enemy.

    • Bijan Parsia says:

      The simplest explanation offered is that Iran is crafty and evil so anything which lessons the pressure on then let’s then be crafty toward more evil. Ie the standard neocon line: nothing is safe unless its rubble not controlled.

      Now throw in that a non-pariah Iran is likely to be a huge presence and force in the Middle East and is historically hostile to Israel/supportive of some of its enemies and you can see why peace with Iran even if it precludes then getting a bomb is not the most attractive outcome.

  33. Ralph Nader says:

    This all proves that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.

  34. You might think that politicians like John Cornyn, Louis Gohmert, Steve Stockman et al are utter morons based on their frequent pronouncements. Not so. This is Texas, where, in the countryside, being a regressive wackadoodle is almost a requirement. Cornyn, Gohmert et al utter this sort of claptrap because their electors love it.
    Just a data point…when I attended a craft fair in Vernon TX in October 2012, the most popular yard sign being handed out by the Franklin County Republican Party at the time was one that said “Let’s vote for the Real American”.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site