Unfortunately, it won’t stop the deal, because most Democrats are voting in lockstep with Obama, rather than the best interests of the United States, oh, and Senator Tom Cotton made it so that the deal doesn’t need Congressional approval.
(Washington Post) A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security.
The letter is the latest in a blizzard of missives petitioning Congress either to support or oppose the agreement with Iran, which would lift sanctions if Iran pared back its nuclear program. Letters have come from ad hoc groupings of rabbis, nuclear scientists, arms-control and nonproliferation experts — and now, retired senior military officers, many of whom have worked in the White House during various administrations dating to the 1980s.
“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,†the letter states.
The letter goes on to say
The agreement as constructed does not “cut off every pathway†for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. To the contrary, it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding by the deal. JCPOA allows all the infrastructure the Iranians need for a nuclear bomb to be preserved and enhanced. Notably, Iran is allowed to: continue to enrich uranium; develop and test advanced centrifuges; and continue work on its Arak heavy-water
plutonium reactor. Collectively, these concessions afford the Iranians, at worst, a ready breakout option and, at best, an incipient nuclear weapons capability a decade from now.
At the end of the day, every single result, good and bad, but, surely, mostly bad, will be laid at the feet of Obama, John Kerry, and the Democrat Party.
Of course, Liberals are asking “what’s the alternative?” How about a deal that permanently dismantles Iran’s nuclear weapons program, rather than kicking the can down the road? Was that not the point of the negotiations?
How many Republicans support the deal? Are they voting in lockstep? My recollection is they were against the deal before it was an agreement.
How do you know this agreement is not in the best interests of the US? Because Dick Cheney says so? John Bolton?
Any idea who actually wrote the letter? The RNC maybe? Netenyahoo?
Those 200 generals: how many of them sinned their names to letters saying they thought the Iraq invasion/10 year occupation was a bad idea?
How many of them could see that a destabilized Iraq would turn into the mess that it is today with Baghdad. The best friend of Iran and ISIS midwifed by the USA?
I’m a little suspicious of that Arkansas Times’ blog post; the writer gives me the impression of being a Democrat, or at least anti-Cotton. The Politico version of events he cites may be true, but the end quote sets Corker up as the reasonable person in the room, and yet Corker is the one responsible for the whole constitutional inversion with his bill demanding the Congress have the power to disapprove this deal, rather than the normal treaty process.
“How many signed their name saying ….Iraq was a bad idea. What relevance would that have? But if you want to know, look it up. “How do you know this agreement is not in the best interests of the U.S?” How do you know that it is in the best interests of the U.S.? Because Obama said so? “Who wrote the letter…” The people who signed the names at the bottom, that’s who. “Why would we give the biggest purveyor of radical Islam in the world the means for a nuclear weapon?” -one key quote from the letter. Remember, after 10 years of checking on themselves, they get to do what they want. And we know because they’ll be inspecting themselves they of course won’t cheat.
Oh for heaven’s sake, these guys don’t know anything. Leave it in the hands of politicians, they know it all.
“How do you know this agreement is not in the best interests of the US? Because Dick Cheney says so? John Bolton?”
No, I actually downloaded the pdf and spent the 2-1/2 hours to read (and annotate) it. Based on my first-hand examination of the deal, I agree with the letter.
Wow. Only 2 1/2 hrs to read and annotate a 159 page document!
What are your 3 most serious objections and why, and what would you do to make a “better” agreement?
The document is double-spaced and quad-spaced between paragraphs. Additionally, I skimmed through the pages that detailed the entities from whom the sanctions would be lifted, mostly names of companies or corporations. Two-and-a-half hours was a relatively relaxed reading.
As to your request for what amounts to a “term paper,” I’m afraid you’ll actually have to put in some time and effort to do your own research to make whatever points you may attempt to put forth. In the past I’ve spent many an hour coming up with links, examples and annotations to refute the second-hand assumptions and third-party objections of others, only to have them come back with, “Oh yeah? Well, what about…” No more.
I read it and evaluated it so that I could form and advance a fact-based, informed opinion.
May I ask what shaped yours?