As Boehner aides pointed out to the Hill "there is bipartisan support for Iran sanctions legislation." That's true: Netanyahu met two days ago with a bipartisan group of seven senators. Dems were represented by Indiana's Joe Donnelly (second from the left) and Virginia's Tim Kaine (not in the picture), not to mention Angus King, the Maine Independent, at left. It was South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham's second visit to Jerusalem inside of a month. He can't stay away! (He fielded Meet the Press's Chuck Todd's question about presidential hopes from Jerusalem.)
On NPR the other day, Steve Inskeep pointed out to Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough that many Democrats support sanctions.
"...given that people in both parties want to act, is there anything Congress can do that the president would accept?
"MCDONOUGH: I think what Congress should do is give us some time to see if these negotiations can work. I think in looking back at the last year under the agreement -- the temporary agreement that we and the rest of the world struck with the Iranians -- we've seen their program frozen in important ways and even rolled back in very important ways. So we've seen good progress against an elicit Iranian nuclear program as a result of these negotiations. So if Congress wants to act later in the year, we could consider that. But at the moment, they ought to give us the space to let these negotiations work."
Inskeep asked McDonough four questions on Iran -- because it's a bipartisan issue in D.C. Last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews asked three Democratic leaders, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and David Axelrod, zero questions about Iran. Because he knows, hawkishness is inside the Democratic Party, and it would have been divisive.
Today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Robert Menendez said that Obama's Iran passage in the State of the Union sounded like "talking points that come straight out of Tehran":
Menendez is co-sponsor of the Iran sanction legislation Obama has promised to veto.
Here is part of the statement by B'nai B'rith International on Obama's speech. It praised him on immigration reform and human dignity and anti-Semitism. But it kept up the pressure for sanctions.
"The president noted his commitment to pursuing diplomatic means to halt Iran's nuclear weapons development program. We must make it starkly clear to Tehran that the expanded deadline for talks must not merely serve as an opportunity for Iran to continue to build its nuclear program and deceive the world about its weapons-making progress. B'nai B'rith has consistently called for maintaining pressure on Iran and keeping all options open. We are pleased the president acknowledged that Iran's nuclear program has implications for the security of both the United States and Israel. But we remain concerned that removing sanctions as an option leaves an open door for Iran's delaying tactics. All options must remain on the table. Keeping up pressure on Iran reinforces a strong U.S. negotiating position."
We're moving toward a real confrontation. Let's hope that journalists inform the American people about what is at stake. Let's hope that M.J. Rosenberg gets out the epithet Israel Firster and heaves it around. How many Americans want another war in the Middle East?
Adam Horowitz contributed all the newsy bits in this post.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
