Listen to this arrogant jackass:
Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio face defeat on Iran
Senate leaders are expected to shut down debate on a nuclear review bill, clearing the way for passage.
Read more: Politico
Republican leaders are preparing to clamp down on Sen. Tom Cotton’s efforts to derail a bipartisan compromise on legislation giving Congress review power over a nuclear deal with Iran, clearing the way for it to be passed this week.
The Senate is set to resume work Monday on the long-considered bill, but lawmakers in both parties agree debate on the measure has run its course, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is widely expected to wrap up consideration of the time-sensitive bill and free it from parliamentary gridlock.
“I would like to have seen more amendments. But in light of the circumstances, that route is now unfortunately over,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the bill’s author and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
In a bid to pressure President Barack Obama to take a tougher negotiating line with Tehran, Cotton (R-Ark.) made a surprise move Thursday to try and force a vote on his amendment, which would require Iran to disclose the history of its nuclear program and shutter all its nuclear facilities, and a proposal from Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio that would require Tehran to recognize Israel’s statehood.
In an interview after the Cotton-sparked row, McConnell said he’d wanted to vote on Rubio’s Israel amendment but that that’s unlikely now.
“The Democrats do not want to vote on it,” McConnell said. “If I could vote on it, I would.”
Asked if he will move to shut down debate on the bill Monday, the leader suggested he might: “I’ll let you know Monday.”
The underlying measure, which would allow Congress to review a deal with Iran and potentially reject the lifting of legislative sanctions, still enjoys broad bipartisan support and is expected to pass the chamber.
Before Cotton made his move, Corker and Cardin had been working with party leaders to deal with demands for votes on some hot-button provisions. When Cotton jammed his and Rubio’s amendments into the voting queue, those delicate talks ended abruptly.
With support from Democrats, the Senate GOP will get its opportunity to disapprove of any nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States. The popular congressional review bill allows Congress to disapprove of lifting legislative sanctions and requires regular reports on Iran’s compliance with the deal.
But Republican hopes of forcing Obama’s negotiating hand with more stern instructions or making Democrats take politically difficult votes are largely dashed. The collapse of amendment talks offers a silver lining for the deal-cutting Corker, who’s devoted sleepless nights and political capital to moving his Iran bill forward.
Last week, the Senate voted on just two amendments, rejecting provisions that would have required Iran to renounce terrorism and turned the nuclear deal into a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate. Keeping additional hot-button amendments off the floor will preserve the veto-proof majority. Obama had been opposed to the legislation but later said he would sign it after tweaks were made and it became clear it had a veto-proof majority.
“My sense is we’re going to move toward successful passage,” Corker said.
“There are between 70 and 80 members who are very pleased for this process to be over, and they want to pass this bill,” Cardin added. “It’s not just Democrats.”
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said “it’s pretty ironic” that because of the way the debate has played out over the Cotton and Rubio proposals, it will be the senators’ fellow Republicans who will be blocked from making further revisions.
McConnell told his colleagues at a private lunch shortly after the breakdown on the Senate floor that no decision has been made to cut off debate on the measure. And indeed, there are several scenarios in which McConnell could allow toothless votes on Cotton and Rubio’s proposals or perhaps attempt to lure Democrats back to the bargaining table.
But senators in both parties say the moment has passed. And McConnell is eager to move on to other matters, including free trade, extending the PATRIOT Act’s surveillance provisions and cybersecurity.
“It was a classic case where the members should be heard,” one Republican senator said of the Iran bill. But now, “there may be a point where you have to figure out how to end that opportunity.”
Cruz, Rubio and Cotton huddled in McConnell’s office for a lengthy meeting on Thursday after the floor scuffle. As he left the meeting, Cruz declined to say whether he would vote against ending debate on the legislation. It’s a roll call vote that would test Republicans’ appetite for limiting debate on the floor after complaining bitterly about Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s strict tactics as majority leader in years past.
“Leadership will have to decide how to proceed,” Cruz said, blaming Democrats for blocking his vote.
After he forced his and Rubio’s issues, Cotton sat at a party lunch among many of his Republican colleagues as they learned they may have lost their chance to get votes on their amendments.
“I think that he understands now the full impact of what has occurred,” Corker said of Cotton.
Caroline Rabbitt, a spokeswoman for Cotton, said the Arkansas freshman was simply using his parliamentary tactics to fight for a “stronger bill.” And she said Cotton hasn’t admitted defeat in seeking votes on his and Rubio’s proposals.
“We can always return to … negotiating the deal they claimed to have been close to reaching,” Rabbitt said. “There is no rule or formality blocking that process from moving forward. It’s only Democratic intransigence.”
Manu Raju contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/iran-nuclear-cotton-rubio-senate-israel-117585.html#ixzz3ZE6i63IO
The voter’s clearly made a mistake!ReplyDelete
I know very little about Tom Cotton - I'd never even heard of him until after the US-Iran nuclear talks and the letter he wrote to the Iranians.
I know that he was a soldier who served in 'Iraq and maybe Afghanistan.
I've read a couple of interviews with him and he is obviously very pro-war, which is curious considering his military service.
Actually, I'm usually very surprised whenever an ex-military man is an unrepentant war-hawk,
Usually it's the NeoCons, who've never been in the military or seen combat, who are the most gung-ho to send american kids to fight and die in questionable foreign wars - like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglass Feith, Michael Ledeen, etc..
The guys who've actually been in combat, killed people and seen their buddies die are much more cautious and thoughtful about committing our nation to war - like Colin Powell, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. They understand the price of war, both in money and human lives.
John McCain is an interesting case, because even though he has been honored for his strength of character as a POW - he was a horrible student at Naval Academy, a bad combat pilot and a disobedient soldier. McCain crashed 4 planes during his time as a Navy pilot and was disobeying direct orders to return to the US airbase with his squadron when he got shot down.
I think that growing up in a celebrated military family, McCain idealized war as a glorious event with which to demonstrate his own bravery.
Getting shot down and held for years as a POW, was probably incredibly humiliating and scarred McCain's psyche to the point that he reflexively supports any potential US war, no matter how useless and self-destructive they are - I think McCain is always trying to erase some imaginary stain on his honor and maybe he thinks that in some way, supporting any potentially successful US war will make him feel like a hero, rather than a failure inside himself.
Why not ask the active duty military people what they think ?ReplyDelete
Let's do -
ecutive Board New Harvard Poll is Bad News for Democrats
Active Duty Military Rating for Obama Shrinks to 15%
Posted by Aleister Tuesday, December 23, 2014 at 1:00pm
“An unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform.”
President Obama has never enjoyed a very high approval rating from members of America’s armed forces, but the end of 2014 finds him at a remarkable new low.
Charlie Spiering of Breitbart reported:
President Obama’s Approval Ratings Crater With Active Duty Military
Active duty members of the United States military are not happy with their commander-in-chief.
According to a Military Times survey, President Obama’s popularity rating has cratered to just 15 percent in 2014.
That is a new low for the President, falling from an already low approval rating of 35 percent in 2009. The poll of nearly 2,300 active duty members also shows that Obama’s disapproval ratings have increased to 55 percent.
The particularly low rating comes as Obama has launched air strikes in response to Islamic State terrorists taking territory and resources in both Iraq and Syria, vowing to keep combat ground troops out of the conflict. He has also deployed members of the military to combat the Ebola threat in Africa.
The Military Times survey cited by Spiering is very frank. Stephen Losey writes:
Obama’s mark on the military
Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As commander in chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon’s personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come.
Speaking of the Pentagon, can you guess who’s sending more troops back to Iraq?
It’s not Obama, it’s the Pentagon. An excellent catch by Ace of Spades.
Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon:
Pentagon to Deploy Up to 1,300 Troops to Iraq in New Year
The Pentagon has announced that up to 1,300 U.S. troops would be sent to Iraq in the New Year, despite promises by President Barack Obama that there would be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria.
Announcement of the new deployments to Baghdad was made to service members and the media just days before Christmas.
These troops, most of them from combat divisions, will deploy to Baghdad in “late January,” according to a Pentagon spokesman.
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel officially “authorized” the deployment, which will consist of around 1,000 soldiers from the Fort Bragg-based 82nd Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team.
That’s strange. I thought Obama ended the Iraq War.
Poll: Obama’s Support Among Military CratersDelete
11:12 AM 12/22/2014
Support for President Obama among members of the military has fallen drastically in recent years, according to the results of a poll published by the Military Times.
A survey of 2,300 active-duty service members showed that only 15 percent of troops polled in 2014 said they approve of the job Obama is doing as commander in chief. That is down from 2009’s paltry 35 percent approval rating.
In 2013, 28 percent approved of Obama. That was a slight increase from the year before when 25 percent backed him.
As the Military Times notes, while troops appear to strongly disapprove of Obama overall, they do support some of the policies he’s enacted since taking office.
The thought inevitably comes dancing along that, unlike Deuce, most in the military kinda like Tom Cotton.Delete
The voters in his state must have kinda liked him too, cause they elected him.Delete
So it would seem that most people, in or out of the active military, like Tom Cotton.
Did you hear that on FOX?
More from FOX
“As it turned out, nobody was shot,” Smith said. “The latest information from police is a man was approached, and the man ran from police while carrying a weapon. As the man ran, the man fell or his weapon dropped or something that’s still in the investigative process. A gun went off. Police say the gun that went off was the gun that was being carried by the man who was running. . . . The man who was being pursued and presumably had the weapon has been taken to a hospital out of an abundance of caution. And police tell us that there are no shooting victims. For the errors we made here, we are deeply sorry.”
In a follow-up report at 5:15, Tobin acknowledged that his live report was inaccurate, but he said, under the circumstances, “I would be hard-pressed not to arrive at the same conclusion [of a police shooting], given all the events that transpired” in rapid succession.
At about the same time Tobin was reporting “As he was running away, an officer drew his weapon and fired.” There were other reports on FOX interviewing people on the street.
One black lady was incensed. She reported that the perp didn't have a gun and that she saw a cop shoot him in the back as he was running away. She was demanding justice. You can see from the vido in the link that she wasn't the only one upset.
Rufus has already found the Police guilty and demands they all be hung, I imagine.Delete
Been tuning in to Fox, have ye, Quirk ?
I hadn't even heard of this story, but then I've been working.Delete
What section of the highway did they have you cleaning up today?
My real estate sale is going through !Delete
I'll be able to build my own personal highway.
Bought a wolf rifle recently.
But you are no longer in the running for skinner.
I don't hire people that have never successfully completed a probation.
A 15% approval rating for the Commander-in-Chief by the active troops isn't very good, is it ?ReplyDelete
Maybe those folks would rather have Tom Cotton as their Commander-in-Chief ?
Pam Geller will be on Fox in a couple of minutes.ReplyDelete
Thank goodness Quirk is watching.
Police: Florida Man High On Meth Caught On Video ‘Surfing’ Atop Moving Cars
May 4, 2015 12:21 PM
May 5, 2015ReplyDelete
Islamophobia or Islamorealism?
By Greg Richards
As we move through this period of Islamic assault on Western civilization in general and on the USA in particular , we can more and more appreciate the stamina and fortitude of Winston Churchill as he warned the British public and government over and over of the gathering storm of Nazi aggression. To those who study history, it has always been bewildering that the British Establishment was so oblivious to the building threat, which was supported by legions of facts.
We find ourselves in a similar situation. Few in public life are willing to address the growing threat to our way of life, to the Constitution from militant Islam. We see the destruction of countries in North Africa by militant Islam. The Middle East is being turned into a charnel house by ISIS while our president and secretary of state can see only infractions of international law by Israel.
Those who do stand up to the deplorable behavior of Islam in power, such as Pamela Geller last week, are accused of Islamophobia. It isn’t Islamophobia. It is Islamorealism. Pamela Geller is protecting our rights of free speech by exercising them and by showing how much security is now necessary to hold an event that would be unremarkable if it involved Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other organized religion.
Being appalled at sharia, at hanging gays, at the behavior of ISIS, at terrorism as a political tactic is not Islamophobia.
It is Islamorealism.
>>>>With the Islamic State in control of large parts of Ramadi as well as all of Fallujah — a city the U.S. military only retook with difficulty in 2004 — the Iraqi troops have some incredibly difficult urban fighting ahead of them. Also, the U.S.-led coalition would be unable to back the Iraqis with air power in dense urban combat.<<<<ReplyDelete
Iraq Faces Huge Challenges Dislodging Islamic State in Anbar
BAGHDAD — Apr 28, 2015, 4:14 AM ET
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and PAUL SCHEMM Associated Press
6 days ago.
It is now only 20 days until Memorial Day - Iraq ISIS Free Celebration Day.
Here it is !!ReplyDelete
Video: Geller vs. Camerota: Free speech warrior bests advocate of Sharia submission
Geller wins hands down !
>>>The stakes couldn’t possibly be higher, but no one in the mainstream media seems to understand that or to be willing to recognize it publicly. The question is this: will the free West allow thugs and murderers to dictate our behavior and force non-Muslims to conform to an Islamic religious law? Or will it stand up for the freedom of speech and recognize it as our foremost protection against an authoritarian government that would strip us of our other rights and freedoms?Delete
CNN’s Alisyn Camerota, in this joust with Pamela Geller, exemplifies the moral blindness of the West, and its eagerness to go gently into that good night, submitting to the dictates of killers.<<<
Did you see that screen quote from Geert Wilders about no humor in Islam ?Delete
A good part of Sharia is simply blasphemy law.Delete
In the West, the beginnings of freedom of speech was associated with doing away with blasphemy laws.
Video: Geert Wilders at the AFDI/JW Muhammad Cartoon ContestDelete
Video: Robert Spencer at the AFDI/JW Muhammad Cartoon ContestDelete
Video: Pamela Geller at the AFDI/JW Muhammad Cartoon ContestDelete
Those that wish to condemn these people really should watch their videos before doing so.Delete