Dems Block Senate Again from Having Its Say on Iran

“It’s necessary that Iran receive the message that the U.S.is prepared to destroy any and all capability and facilities without warning or prolonged negotiation”, said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, who supports the bill along with Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-IL, and Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-MT.

The only way that McConnell’s gambit might pose a serious chance of stopping the Iran deal is if it were setting the stage for the “nuclear option”-i.e. ending the legislative filibuster”.

“I think we have now a year and a half before the next president comes into office to demonstrate a track record of compliance on both sides that can build confidence the deal”, Kahl said.

“Yet again, Senate Democrats have put partisanship above the American people and refused to allow an up or down vote on the Iran deal”.

The Republican lawmaker has slated a vote for Thursday on a measure that would prohibit President Obama from lifting economic sanctions on Iran until Tehran recognizes the country of Israel and releases a handful of American hostages held in the country.

But Reid countered that the vote last week was evidence that Democrats support the deal because they believe it will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

“A robust, bipartisan majority of the Home of Representatives voted to reject the deal”.

Iran is not likely to do either so long as the current regime is in power. 100 percent said “no”.

“This deal would work well if the United States of America was not the US and Iran was not Iran”, he added. On Monday morning at 1 am, anchor Errol Barnett glossed over it. “Turning now to the Iran nuclear deal, and there’s no shortage of American distrust”. But the USA will not become involved in business relations as a result of other sanctions levied under the Obama administration. “A better deal is possible, and the American people should accept nothing less”.

“Cotton offered the assessment in response to a question at a Constitution Day event sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies, where he argued that the Iran deal could make the constitutional requirement that treaties receive two-thirds’ support in the Senate effectively meaningless”.

“We hope that the full implementation of [the nuclear deal] will ensure the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme under the [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and will be a definitive step toward greater stability and security in the region”, Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s foreign minister, said in a statement delivered at the international Atomic Energy Association in Vienna. And then agree that military action is required?