How Many Democrats Plan to Support GOP Plan to Kill Iran Deal in it's Crib?

     That remains the question. Chuck Schumer apparently is one of those in Congress that think that the worse thing that can ever happen is something you do being described as 'anti Israel.'  Democrats who are thinking about supporting this GOP Senate bill should really think again, Do these Democrats like Schumer really think the bill is just about having a 'review' of any Obama deal, or that it's really designed to scuttle any deal?

    "Administration officials warn that while the substance of the bill from Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) might seem innocuous enough, it could create the perception that Congress thinks the emerging nuclear deal is not viable."

    "White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration has been “in close touch” with lawmakers about the framework of the Iran deal reached last week and is urging them to evaluate it “on the merits.”

    "On Tuesday, Earnest told reporters the Corker-Mendez bill includes a poison pill provision that would make an agreement contingent on Iran renouncing terrorism."

   “Now, that’s an unrealistic suggestion, because we’ve been very clear that this agreement is focused on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that it is not going to succeed in resolving the long list of concerns that we have with Iran’s behavior,” he said.

     http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/238140-senate-dems-waver-on-iran-bill

     The GOP is just desperate to for once be able to scuttle something the President is doing through executive action and Democrats are crazy if they finally give them what they want. 

     "The Iran review bill has nine co-sponsors in the Democratic caucus, which appears to give supporters, at minimum, 63 votes to override a presidential veto."

     "Republicans are hopeful that Warner, Coons and Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), now the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, would give them three more votes to override Obama."

     "But Cardin, who took over the top Democratic slot on the panel after Menendez stepped aside in the wake of corruption charges, indicated in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Tuesday that he wants to see changes to the bill to address the administration’s concerns."

    “What I am trying to make sure is that the legislation we consider is a congressional review and does not prejudge the agreements — that we make sure there’s nothing in this that’s inconsistent with the power of the president to negotiate the strongest possible agreement with Iran,” he said.

     One of these co-sponsors is: Chuck Schumer, the presumed successor to Harry Reid as Democratic Senate leader. 

     "The Corker-Menendez bill received a major boost before the April recess when New York Sen. Charles Schumer — who is next in line to become Senate Democratic leader after Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he would not seek reelection — signed on as a co-sponsor."

     “This is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration and I expect to have classified briefing in the near future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to occur,” Schumer said in a statement Monday.

     "Republicans argued that Schumer’s backing is a sign the bill is gathering momentum."

     “He’s a very prominent voice within their caucus,” noted a senior GOP aide.

     Indeed. I can only presume that Schumer lives in total fear of being seen as 'anti Israel' on anything that the GOP and Netanyahu decree is anti-Israel. 

      Note too that Schumer seems to be saying that this bill will do more than merely 'review' any deal and instead 'disapprove it.' Based on this criteria Cardin should be concerned. 

      There are two real issues with this. First this is an attempt by the GOP Congress to again usurp Obama's power as Commander in Chief-something that no one ever saw fit to do when Bush was President. 

      The other, of course, is what Greg Sargent raises: Congress only wants to review the President when he engages in diplomacy but never in his war making powers. 

      "The debate is intensifying in Congress over what lawmakers should do to place limits on President Obama’s authority to implement a deal with major world powers and Iran over the future of that country’s nuclear program. This is as it should be."

      "At the same time, however, the discussion among lawmakers has vanished entirely on another topic related to Obama’s authority to carry out foreign policy: Whether Congress will vote to limit Obama’s authority to wage war against ISIS."

       "This double-standard was pointed out to me by Senator Chris Murphy, a rising star within the Democratic Party who is emerging as a voice of sanity on Iran. Murphy has urged fellow Dems to exercise caution in supporting the Corker-Menendez bill restricting Obama’s ability to implement a nuclear deal pending a Congressional vote, which the White House fears could scuttle the whole process."

       "Murphy asks why Congress is so much more eager to vote to restrict Obama’s ability to carry out a negotiated diplomatic settlement than it is to vote to restrict his ability to wage war. Murphy agrees with the White House that Senate authorization is not required for Obama to temporarily lift sanctions as part of an Iran deal — because that deal would not be a treaty — though he thinks Congress should probably vote directly on the deal at some point, perhaps soon after it is signed. But Murphy disagrees with the White House on its request for a too-broad, too-vagueAuthorization for Use of Military Force against ISIS, and wants Congress to vote to place limits on that authority. And these two things go together."

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/08/morning-plum-when-it-comes-to-war-congress-has-a-double-standard/

     The whole issue of executive power is always a double standard anyway. When Bush was President the GOP believed in more or less absolute power for the executive on foreign policy. With a Democrat in the White House this has conspicuously changed. 

    I see that Dick Cheney, who's fantasy is a President with no Congress since his time in the Nixon White House, is again going way beyond what is normally said by former Presidents and Vice Presidents when leaving the White House.  He doesn't like President Obama, and claims that he 'wants to take American down.'

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-irony-cheneys-latest-anti-obama-broadside

     To say that Obama is the worst President ever on foreign policy suggests he suffers from memory loss-he and Bush's foreign policy was a disaster the consequences of which we are still dealing with today. 

   But then, during Bush-Cheney, the State department-the department that handles diplomacy had all the usefulness of a third eye. Cheney prefers a foreign policy where diplomacy is never tried. 

   Yet, I think it's a good thing that he keeps raising his ugly head: it ought to remind Americans what it is when the GOP says Obama's foreign policy is very bad what they consider to be a very good foreign policy: Bush-Cheney. 

   Rather than Corker-Melendez, we ought to call this Senate bill Cheney-Corker-Melendez.