The impeachment talk I heard today was because of the deal with Iran and I am pretty sure I mentioned that. I see you have no response to my previous post. Just a complaint about something unrelated to the thread.
I’ll repeat it just in case you didn’t read my second paragraph:
So unless you think Obama, and his Secretary of State(s) have screwed up foreign policy so badly that he (they) deserve to have lost public approval, I would expect you’d have some concern about the effectiveness of those dedicated to destroying his legacy as well as the Iran deal. Do you have concern or has Obama not been good (Approvable) on Foreign policy overall? Do you approve or disapprove of Obama’s handling of foreign policy and in particular his position on the Iran deal?
Post 873… from BrainGlutton posted a link to the New York Post…
Go there, it is all quite positive news… but next to the Report that the Iranians agreed to limit enrichment to 5% and allow the IAEA come in to verify compliance…
But next to the decent good news… is a link to the Prince of the enemy of peace and negotiation… repeating his quite disgusting opinions once against…
Bolton and his ilk appear to be winning the argument on foreign policy if we use the polling of Obama’s approval rating as a scorecard.
It’s not a silly question. Perhaps you should consider being more precise in your posts. You said: *"Those favoring derailing it are on an all out blitz to drive Obama into deeper disapproval territory as an appeaser, blame America, Muslim sympathizer. " * Immediately after I posted:
“The real problem Obama has is the numerous Democrats in the Senate who really, really want to approve more sanctions now, although they wouldn’t trigger unless Iran defaults on the deal. The Republicans, of course, are lined up against him, and there isn’t much he can do about that. But he should be able to put a leash on the Senators in his own party. More schmoozing is in order.”
Now, if you weren’t referring to those same Democrats, who were you referring to? We can’t read your mind.
I was referring to the likes of John Bolton and Republican Pundits and Politiicians that are motivated to derail a peace deal with Iran. The Dems are wrong to think their actions helps the diplomatic process - they are now being used by those who want diminish Obama as a leader on all foreign policy and derail the deal.
Is there really no room for honest disagreement over policy in your worldview? Must anyone who disagrees with Obama be either trying to destroy him for spite, or be the puppet of those who are? For goodness’ sake, people can reasonably disagree over what course to take with Iran’s nuclear program.
If you think Bolton is being reasonable in his disagreements with Obama over what course to take with Iran’s nuclear program then I guess you’d have an argument. I don’t.
If it comes down to bombing Iran into solving the nuclear issue because Bolton’s lack of reason prevails - say the hardliners in Iran win over the moderates if something dealing with new sanctions is passed in the US Congress - then will you be complaining about my position or will you be fine with it? You know, both sides are reasonable and ‘bombs’ happen - thats ok we all can reasonably disagree.
Does anyone here think the Dems in the Senate are reasonably correct to expect that passing something right now actually strengthens Obama’s hand in securing a good long term deal with Iran to be certain they do not acquire a nuclear bomb?
The Dems favoring the sanctions bill with Republicans apparrently could not argue a reasonable case for doing so face to face with Obama. That does not show a reasonable argument exists in opposition to Obama on Iran, does it?
I think that his veto of the bill will, in a weird way, give him a stronger bargaining position with the Iranians, but I don’t think that the Senate Democrats are reasoning that way. I don’t understand why they aren’t willing to let him handle the diplomacy, the way the Constitution recommends. It isn’t usual for the Senate to shove their way into negotiations of this type, is it? It certainly seems ham-fisted to me.
When they met with Obama yesterday on Iran sanctions it is being reported that the Dem Senators were dead silent with no argument to defend what they have been agitating about. I have no problem calling them stupid when they cannot articulate a defense of their so-called honest readonable dissagreement with Obama on this. Come on, i am right on this and you must know it. Since you don’t appear to have an argument that defines why I am wrong or that these Senators are being honest and reasonable.
I get the reasoning why Republicans are doing it. If Obama succeeds much of the neocon marketplace for ideas will dry up and they will need a new boogyman to fear up the American public. Diplomacy/Sanctions with enough international clout will be shown to prevail over ‘military might makes the only right’ obsession they have.
The dishonesty on the right is that Obama has been tough and militaristic whe the need exists but a strong backer of diplomacy when diplomacy has a chance to work.
I like that in a President / any President. Obama’s predecessor had a chance to show that kind of wisdom if any readers wish to know a reference point from how I am assessing Obama’s job performance on national security.
They’ve made their argument plenty of times in the past, and it’s very simple: They don’t trust the Iranians. Many of them have been at this game much longer than Obama. Now, I don’t agree with them, but I don’t think think they are being stupid, either. Reasonable people can disagree about what we need to do going forward.
You miss my point: it’s not that you think Bolton et al are being unreasonable, or that you think they’re wrong - it’s that you claim that not even they believe what they are saying, that they really know that Obama’s stance is the best one and they try and sabotage his efforts to attack his popularity. That’s simply not conducive to fair-minded debate. Debate requires honest discussion of the actual points of contention, not demonizing the other guy.
[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
If it comes down to bombing Iran into solving the nuclear issue because Bolton’s lack of reason prevails - say the hardliners in Iran win over the moderates if something dealing with new sanctions is passed in the US Congress - then will you be complaining about my position or will you be fine with it? You know, both sides are reasonable and ‘bombs’ happen - thats ok we all can reasonably disagree.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not your position on the Iranian issue I have a problem with, it’s the way you approach debate and way you characterize those who disagree with your position. An attack on Iran wouldn’t change those things.
I agree with you that a veto by Obama may show him in a favorable position with moderates in Iran, however when this Senate action came up last summer there were enough Senators on board with Republicans to over-ride a veto. That (Dems support) has tapered off since then but taking a chance on that seems senseless in the consequences are bigger than any small benefit. Obama is already in a strong position on this and Dems should let the Republicans founder and sink on it all on there own.