and the top Iranian General - leader of Quds-force - defies travel ban and meets with Putin. What does Obama do? Nothing. Never does when his red line(s) are crossed. Just looks for a new golf course.
Kerry was questioned on July 29, five days after the Iranian leader's Moscow visit, about Soleimani receiving sanctions relief. Kerry responded: "Under the United States's initiative, Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions." So now what John?http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
Kerry was questioned on July 29, five days after the Iranian leader's Moscow visit, about Soleimani receiving sanctions relief.
Kerry responded: "Under the United States's initiative, Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions." So now what John?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
".....................with a veto proof majority. I'm not surprised you fell for this scam. Schumer is a snake! He will tell his Jewish supporters in NewYork he opposes the deal but will make sure enough Democrats in the Senate support the deal so a veto by Obama cannot be overridden.
Kerry was questioned on July 29, five days after the Iranian leader's Moscow visit, about Soleimani receiving sanctions relief.
Kerry responded: "Under the United States's initiative, Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions." So now what John?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
It's ways to make this deal happen even if he does not support it personally.
Kerry was questioned on July 29, five days after the Iranian leader's Moscow visit, about Soleimani receiving sanctions relief.
Kerry responded: "Under the United States's initiative, Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions." So now what John?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
What is he thinking not trusting a terrorist state, that wants our key ally wiped off the map and is pursuing the means to do so, that has a horrific track record of not honoring deals while holding our four hostages?
Schumer is just one of those right wing crazies who feels giving terrorists $150 bn to kill innocent people is wrong. What a nut job!
The ink wasn't even dry on the deal and the Iranians are already cheating!
Who could have possibly seen this coming? 
You must be joking! Israel is not an ally but pain in the ass.
Has created and continue to create more problems for us.
What does Israel has ever done for us?
NOT A THING!
protocol that I keep hearing the righties agonize over?
It was Obama Inc telling us it was needed in April and the Energy Sec. telling us it would be in the final draft.
So, you tell me. Why did THEY tell us it was important for it to be in there only to cave to the Iranians at the last second?
not only now but also after eight years, as I understand the Iran agreement. And the US will enforce the UN travel ban.
Russia, however, has obviously decided already to no longer honor the United Nations Travel Ban on this guy. We have nothing to do with that.
But this underscores the naivety of the Board righties, and our lost lefty lamb Doctor Gonzo, that we can vote down the Iran agreement and instead install even “tougher sanctions ” through “coercive diplomacy.” Russia is not going to honor any future tough sanctions. They have made that pretty clear. China and India continue to buy more and more oil from Iran. They are not going to stop either.
In short, if Congress voids the deal, or if Congress approves but one of the vote pandering Republicans (“the first thing I’m going to do is revoke the Iran deal”) is elected president and rescinds it, the only thing we can count on is that US sanctions will be back in place.
The EU has already approved the Iran deal. If the US votes no or rescinds, do you really think they will come back and agree to the former sanctions, much less tougher ones?
Under the agreement, btw the European Union waives sanctions against Suleimani after 8 years. So he will be able to travel thru Europe and open bank accounts there. So get use to this guy bopping around regardless of what happens.
And what really cracks me up when I hear someone say “let’s get tough on sanctions,” is we weren’t enforcing the existing sanctions even BEFORE the Iran agreement. The GAO in June said the State Dept was THREE YEARS BEHIND in reporting sanction violations. The UN also reported that many countries were not reporting Iran sanctions violations.
So now we are going to get tough
Or "we've never said anyone wouldn't lose their doctor, we said the ACA wouldn't be the cause."
Come on, Mari. Krauthammer just destroyed this deal, Obama's ridiculous defense of same and the fallacy of snap back sanctions.
But really, what were you expecting from a guy that was so dishonest selling this POS deal when he said it was "THIS deal or WAR."
People in both the US and Israel have now looked at the deal and they think Obama got bullied by a terrorist state and capitulated to all their key demands.
And they think that because...HE DID
doesnt he know that when obama speaks we all have to listen
Congress has a 10% approval so obama can dis regard congress
The UN Security Council and the European Union voted and approved the Iran Nuclear Agreement unanimously. That lifts lot of sanctions and travel bans that were in place for Iran.
The 5 countries who signed and approved the agreement as well as all other member nations of the UN are under no obligation to obey or follow anything the 55 Ayatollahs in US Senate do about the agreement. They can approve it, reject it, tear it up (yesterday's debate) or pee on it, it is not going to make any difference to rest of the countries.
The US can keep its sanctions and travel bans but it will be more of a big joke than a deterrent. When Iran starts to export its oil, it can put all oil revenues in European Banks and held in Euro.
There will be two big losers in this whole thing: Israel & USA.
...and his first priority is keeping his job, and succeeding Harry Reid as leader of the Senate Democrats. He knows he would face a tough election with lots of money being given to his opponent if he votes for the deal.
Citizen United rears its ugly head again.
He announces publically he's against the nuclear deal and receives Jewish support but then promises Obama/Democratic establishment that he will fight privately to get the deal through the Senate. Pretty slick even though I cannot stand the guy.
Citizen United rears its ugly head again.
-- Modified on 8/7/2015 9:30:52 AM
Well, because the families of persons killed on 9/11 and their lawyers have six billion good reasons to love the sanctions relief afforded Iran by the Iran agreement- as do the other victims of Iran terror who have their own judgments
In 2012, the 9/11 families obtained a default judgment for 6 billion in federal court against Iran, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden in 2012. That ‘s right – Iran is liable for 9/11. And you thought it was Saddam – or at least George did.
Collecting against Osama and Al Qaeda proved difficult. Duh. But there is 6 billion in frozen Iran funds sitting in Citibank and several other US banks. The 9/11 plaintiffs have tried to attach these funds to pay their judgment but the courts have said “no” as long as the funds remain frozen.
If the Iran agreement is upheld, and Iranian monies are unfrozen, the terror victims in theory should be able to attach these funds. Some of the terror victims have filed a lawsuit asking the court to force the Obama admin to pay their judgments before the funds are released to Iran. That seems fair to me –instead of Iran using the money for MORE terrorism they have to pay for past bad acts.
And let’s not forget about those shepherds of the lord, the lawyers, who took these cases on a one third contingency. They will make out like bandits. As will the hedge funds who bought the judgments from desperate 9/11 families for pennies on the dollar. Not quite as warm and fuzzy a story but I still like it.
Iran really screwed up by not insisting on some kind of immunity for the judgment.
But if the Iran agreement is voted down – no sanctions relief for Iran and no money for the 9/11 families.
So if you oppose the Iran agreement, you ironically also oppose the last chance the 9/11 families and other terror victims have of receiving compensation for their losses.
PS- this was originally posted as an OP to avoid hijacking nuguy’s thread but is reposted here per TER instructions.
Kerry was questioned on July 29, five days after the Iranian leader's Moscow visit, about Soleimani receiving sanctions relief.
Kerry responded: "Under the United States's initiative, Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions." So now what John?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
...with the likelihood that Iran would take some of that $150billion and use it for more terrorism in the future? Now who would that be....hmmmmm......
terrorism plaintiffs would get more. I have not added it up but I doubt it is 150 billion. Further, the assets have to be subject to United States attachment. Iran funds frozen by other countries would not be subject to US attachment. And once it becomes apparent that attachment MAY be possible, you bet Iran would settle for less. Or maybe Congress passes a law providing some immunity here.
So absolutely we have to assume that even under a best case scenario for plaintiffs, Iran will take some of that 150 billion and use it for terrorism. This is the trade off for stopping Iran from getting the bomb at least before the one year break out time. I'd just love to see these guys get paid first and reduce the sum available for this.
Lot of "Ifs" in your supposition that need to be cleared.
But even if all that pans out, that is still grasping at straws as to why this is a good or bad deal.
We still have no clue what is in the secret side deals and its stunning to think we signed off on this without knowing that. The IAEA a is essentially the referee between the West and Iran.
Now imagine you were coaching a team, say college hoops. You find out before the big game, the opposing team has a "deal" with the refs.
You go over to the refs and say "what is this I am hearing about some special deal you worked out with my opponent?"
And imagine there reply is "we are barred from talking about it."
Would you really feel confident that that game was on the up and up or would you have massive cause for concern?
No need to respond as of course this is just rhetorical.
Secret side deals with a terrorist state, that Kerry, Obama and the congress don't know even know about, boggles the mind.
I can only give you the Unemployed Porn Star view. This one is way over my pay grade, if I had a pay grade.
The lawsuit was just filed this week. As we speak, Justice Dept lawyers are preparing a motion to dismiss raising all kinds of defenses I have never heard of. Plus I have not read the Iran agreement-maybe there is something in there that protects Iran, as outrageous as that would be.
The Obama admin has not been very friendly to the plaintiffs so far. They sided with Saudi Arabia in getting the sheiks out of the law suit. A court brought them back in and the S Ct declined to review. Have not heard Mr. O say anything about this so far.
You will be hearing more about this when the DOJ files its response
He equated the Republicans and some Democrat Congressmen whose loyalty is to the theocratic Zionist state. He stands by his statement that the members of Congress who opposed the Iran Agreement before it was even announced as no better than the Iranian Ayatollahs and hardliners who oppose anything their Government does in foreign affairs.
Good for you Mr. President. They deserve that honor