Obama lobbies Congress on Iran; Democrats seek changes to bill

Just because it didn't work with N. Korea does not mean it won't work with Iran.

N. Korea is N. Korea, Iran is Iran. Your argument would only work if we were talking about another deal with N. Korea.

Obama admitted to NPR that after his lifetime agreement with Iran ends , the breakout time for Iran to get nuclear bomb is down to zero, and it will up to next president ( kicking can down the road for his own legacy)! What about the capability of missile with nuclear warhead that found nowhere in the agreement? Two third of Iran's centrifuges were installed under his watch and not even one will be scrapped? If it is good deal, Obama doesn't need to twist people arms. It seems Obama has no respect of his own saying from Syria's red line, Yemen's success, JayVee's ISIS, and previous statements on Iran. Iran is a religious sponsored terrorism state and the agreement should be view from this context, which is the core value of Iranian Mullahs.

Obama admitted to NPR that after his lifetime agreement with Iran ends , the breakout time for Iran to get nuclear bomb is down to zero, and it will up to next president

Source please.

Theoretically, Congressional involvement would be welcomed (as Obama himself has noted), and constitutionally, it would be required to make any agreement permanent, which is desirable in such long-term treaties. But, of course, the caveats:

Congress should not allow itself to micromanagement the deal due to its complexity and multiple players. Any bill should be simply an up-down vote.

A vote will politicize the issue, particularly among Republicans, who have already begun trying to tie the nuclear agreement to extraneous issues. Whether the GOP can control itself sufficiently to work in the nation's good is in serious doubt.

The GOP promised when it took the Senate that they would prove they could govern. So far, the results have been very mediocre. Any Iran agreement will display whether they can play fair in the same sandbox with other countries. The onus is on them.

Iranians have been chanting, "Death to America" for decades. Their government provides terrorists in that region: Terrorists whom have killed thousands of multi-national troops. Obama is determined to reward that country for terrorism.

Obama is determined to reward that country for terrorism.

Wow, rhetoric much?

@Strangerland: Heh, don't expect the pro-terrorist, Iran apologists at this site to understand.

Back on topic: Neville Chamber .... I mean, Barack Obama has bowed low and kissed Iran's feet in the hopes of waving a piece of paper in the air and proclaim: "A deal has been reached."

Meanwhile, Iran is invading one country after another -- Iraq and Yemen -- and all Obama can say is "suck it up Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and the rest of the middle east because Nazi Germ...I mean, Iran, says they will be good lil' boys while continuing their invasions.

What blows me away about the ignorance of those who are against this deal, is that they think:

1) It's a complete waiver of any bad behavior by Iran (it's not)

2) It's going to be done without any inspections by the west, to ensure that they are sticking with the deal (there will be checks)

This deal is on nuclear weapons only, not on other behavior, and it has a built in set of checks and inspections, to ensure that Iran keeps on track.

Some people just will not listen, Strangerland. They either do not or refuse to understand, and any logic used will not in turn be met with a rational argument but instead one red herring after another.

If they're just JT posters, let it go. I worry about what happens when they're in the Senate.

Strangerland: What blows me away about the ignorance of those who are against this deal, is that they think:

What I've come to learn is that people who are against this deal don't really deal with specifics. I'd venture to say that a majority of the GOP supporters on here don't even know what the main points of the deal are. They had their talking points before the deal was reached and they are exactly the same after the deal was reached.

For all of those against the deal, if you don't think we can trust Iran, then fine. Say that. Say that we are going to break away from negotiations and there will be no negotiations in the future because any deal would involve some kind of trust/verification. Then tell us what you would do next and why you think it would work.

If you're unable to do that, then please make it easy on everyone else and identify yourself as someone who is only willing to say things like, "Obama secretly wants Iran to have nukes" so we can exclude you from the adult table. The GOP has taken a lot of heat for not offering alternatives (remember they were supposed to LEAD?) and we need to keep the pressure on them. Americans and even most Republicans do not look to the GOP for creating policy.

Obama lobbies Congress on Iran; Democrats seek changes to bill

Once more Liberals are showing why they should never be in power!