It’s Official – Bloodthirsty Warmonger Coons, an Iran deal skeptic
I really don’t get why Coons wants to build up this image as a fucking bloodthirsty warmonger. Are their really that many warmonger-y Delawareians clamoring for our delegation to be on the forefront of undermining the Obama administration’s very successful diplomatic engagement with Iran?
Joe Biden was on the phone Tuesday morning with a fellow Delaware native, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, hoping to lock down his support for the Obama administration’s sweeping nuclear accord with Iran.
But the vice president quickly learned the administration has a lot more work to do with congressional Democrats.
After the 30-minute call, in which Biden walked Coons through his concerns, the senator ticked off a list of technical questions that he wanted the administration to answer thoroughly. Coons said the talk with Biden was helpful, but until he hears more, he’s reserving judgment on the deal.
“Iran has seriously earned our distrust,” Coons said in the Capitol on Tuesday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/key-democrats-skeptical-of-iran-deal-120123.html#ixzz3fyf76EOQ
Tags: Coons
or is he a skeptic?
Also, Joe Biden isn’t a Delaware native.
Thanks.
“Iran has seriously earned our distrust,” Coons said in the Capitol on Tuesday.
Go read up on Stuxnet Coons….
Tells you how much power Biden has over his former state doesn’t it?
This guy has no problem fast tracking an obviously bad trade deal yet he seems to have a pessimistic attitude about what could be a breakthrough deal supported by ar least 3 of our strongest and longest lasting allies that possibly avoids conflict and may repair a decades old bad relationship between these two countries
I wonder if the CIA overthrowing their democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953 earned us some trust over there?
Nah. The USA is always the good guys.
So, now I understand Delaware Liberal. If you don’t agree with your party, you’re wrong. A warmonger?, that is a joke, Jason330.
Senator Coons is doing his JOB, he is asking questions, so he can make an intelligent decision!
He never even mentioned WAR. I think you recently wrote an article how the Republican’s would start with over the edge headlines, oh similar to the one you just wrote!
Please. You can’t deny the outcome that would result from Senator Coons’ preferred course of action. This is not a random comment. In the context of his other utterances it adds up to bloodthirsty wRmonger and it is a brand identity he is constantly building up.
Coons’ fealty to AIPAC is pathetic. Just like that Donahue blowhard doesn’t speak for American Catholics, neither does AIPAC speak for American Jews. AIPAC speaks for the most militaristic hardline Israeli leaders.
Coons would do well to speak to a cross-section of those in the Delaware Jewish community instead of buying into AIPAC’s sabre-rattling. They, after all, are his constituents. AIPAC is merely a source of blood money for him.
The advantage of this deal is that when Iran violates it there will be economic repercussions. That’s better than no deal. I wonder if Vegas is making odds on how long it will take for Iran to violate the deal.
The tone of Obama’s words in his press conference today strongly suggested to me that there is a general US mistrust of Iran. Coon’s comments about mistrust of Iran are consistent.
I received an email recently from a colleague who studied nuclear engineering at MIT 30 years ago. He recalled that a surprisingly high percentage of classmates were from Iran. It is unlikely any could get a Q Clearance to work in the US nuke industry. His closing comment was “Where are they now?”
Who knows if the politicians are being advised well enough technically to know what is important to really negotiate. Jimmy Carter certainly was not advised well when he banned reprocessing of nuclear fuel for fear of plutonium being stolen despite the fact that weapons grade plutonium could not be separated from the mix. It was uninformed fear-mongering by the left that created our nuclear waste problem and continues to prevent technical solutions that existed 50 years ago.
Iran is swimming in oil and bathed by plenty of sun. Nuclear energy is incredibly expensive to develop and deploy safely. The waste needs to be dealt with. The development of a reduced waste (drastically reduced half life waste) breeder reactor would raise all kinds of security concerns. Why go nuclear for peaceful power generation in a place like Iran? It makes me wonder about Iran’s intentions and why a deal with some repercussions is better than no deal. It hopefully delays the likely.
Jimmy Carter was picked by Admiral Rickover himself to join the new nuclear sub team, and he has training in reactor physics. What President Carter would tell you is that it was President Ford who banned the reprocessing of spent plutonium fuel in the US, and it was President Carter who banned the reprocessing of commercial spent nuclear fuel, but Reagan lifted that ban. Then, of course you have to ask yourself why –since Reagan made it OK — that commercial reprocessing functionally doesn’t exist. And it ain’t “fear-mongering by the Left”.
Iran may be swimming in oil, but it is valuable to them when they sell it on the world market. Oil-powered power plants are rare and why would you burn up a commodity you can get the rest of the world to pay you top dollar? We gave them their first reactor in the 60’s AND the Iranians bought their first nuclear plant from the Germans (I think). It wasn’t finished at the revolution and fuel was cut off. So what would YOU do? You finish it yourself and you figure out how to fuel it. Once you’ve gotten that far, it isn’t a giant leap to building your own bomb. Which is why the victory here is about the Iranians mothballing their program.
Jason is the leftist equivalent of Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes, minus the giant media outlets.
BE HONEST, Jason. Coons is beholden to Israel & their American lobby. He’s a jackass & he’s only in office because COD fucked up an election a few years ago.
None of that necessarily makes him a “bloodthirsty warmonger”. He’s just a piece of shit “New Democrat” who happens to be a tool of the Pro-Israel lobby, and the banks, and Big Pharma, etc. In short, he’s a rich guy who is beholden to other rich guys.
“BE HONEST, Jason. Coons is beholden to Israel & their American lobby. He’s a jackass & he’s only in office because COD fucked up an election a few years ago.”
All true.
“None of that necessarily makes him a “bloodthirsty warmonger”
On this issue, he is on the side of bloodthirsty warmongers. When you shake hands with the Devil, you don’t change the Devil, the Devil changes you.
I knew who would post the response after mine. Very predictable.
OK, so Ford got bad advice. Carter, Bush Sr, and Clinton on similar page as Ford discouraging reprocessing. Bush Jr and Reagan encouraged it. Sorry for mentioning a Dem negatively. I’ll only mention Republicans negatively from now on. As I said, most politicians don’t know anything technical. Their actions are political. Again, who knows if they are negotiating terms that pass technical muster. There seems to be input from DoD and IAEA so let’s hope the politicians, negotiators, and the writers of the terms of the deal understand the advisors. We won’t know for many many years.
Talk to multiple nuclear engineers and ask why we do not reprocess and you will get an answer you do not like. The restrictions change at political will and with 25 year development, licensing, and implementation cycles it does not make sense to undertake such a program and if a company does, it only makes sense if it is funded 100% by the government. A team I was on worked on a boron isotope doped material to make a longer lasting (widget) used inside the reactor. The big nuke plant OEM said that the program was “fast tracked to an 18-20 year” timeframe for commercialization! The development cycle (more specifically the testing cycle) for anything in this realm is hugely expensive and take an incredible amount of time. If the govt changes its mind every 8 years there is no way to get anything implemented. Wait I just remembered, The Bush Jr push started in 2002 prompting innovation and testing. Obama killed it in 2009. That was less than 8 years to switch directions, again.
“the victory here is about the Iranians mothballing their program”.
If they will mothball why do their facilities need to be inspected? We can just make sure the doors are chained and no one enters. Take a satellite photo every few days to make sure there are no people entering the facilities and “no cars in the parking lot”. No? Because we don’t trust them and they are not mothballing their program as a result of this agreement. They always claimed to be developing their capability for civilian power and this deal will try to hold them to that. That prompts the question “what are they mothballing?”
So if this agreement does not stop them from developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in your words “it isn’t a giant leap to building (their) own bomb”.
As I said, it is good that this deal has been struck to at least delay and slow down their progress. The sanctions are lifted in 5 and 8 years when we can only hope Iran will be a different political and social mindset, or else it’s Hillary’s problem then. I wonder if Hillary is thinking “oh crap.” It is my opinion that only Iran can stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon and that will only happen with a political and social change in Iran.
Iran’s oil is so valuable that they would rather sell it than use it and spend billions to develop nuclear power instead? That is your argument? The amount that they would use is a drop in the bucket compared with total output. They are going be able to export 1.5 million barrels per day once the sanctions are lifted. The marginal cost to use the little they use domestically instead of selling it is well…marginal.
As I said, most politicians don’t know anything technical.
Neither do you, clearly.
it only makes sense if it is funded 100% by the government.
Partially correct. It doesn’t exist here because the government won’t backstop the risks. And if you need the government to make it OK for you to do this work, then there isn’t much need for it. Other countries do provide this backstop.
If they will mothball why do their facilities need to be inspected?
To make sure they stay mothballed. Are you seriously asking this question? Why would you make this kind of deal WITHOUT some process to ensure some basic compliance?
That prompts the question “what are they mothballing?”
And this is where I tell you to go away and understand what you are talking about before coming here and making it plain that you have no idea what you are talking about. Sheesh.
The marginal cost to use the little they use domestically instead of selling it is well…marginal.
Not marginal at the world price. And you end up with nuclear power plants (and I note that you never addressed the point that oil fired power plants aren’t exactly a technical solution of choice) that you can use to generate power when the oil is gone. There was a reason why we gave them a reactor years ago, you know.
I dont think anyone from the administration TRUSTS Iran (the leaders…. we are talking about the leaders here, not the Iranian people)
All I can offer to back that up is the president’s statement that he doesn’t trust Iran. Could be I was reading too far into that. “This is built on verification, not trust” COULD have meant “Oh boy! those Iranians sure are awesome! I gave them the keys to our nukes!”
If Coons wants to join with the hawks on Iran than he should tell us if he is in favor of War or peace
He claims he’s withholding judgment. I say he votes against it. Anyone wanna bet?
I want to take that bet, but I need odds. Now that AIPAC has laid down the law.
My prediction – He will vote “no” on the deal to mollify his AIPAC paymasters. But the real question is – will he vote to override the inevitable veto?
That would be a reckless and irreparable break with the desires of his constituents.
Coons is gutless, so if his vote is the one that makes the difference, he might have a breakdown.
Cassandra, you asked that I go away and come back when I know what I am talking about. I refer to whitehouse.gov
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
They are are taking many centrifuges offline…OK, mothballing. They are reconfiguring Arak. Not exactly closing down Iran’s nuke capability. Again referring to whitehouse.gov, this deal extends the time for Iraq to make enough material for a weapon from 2-3 months to 1 year, (after they violate the agreement).
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/iranDeal_graphics_3_justSecured.jpg
Again, this deal is better than nothing. Coons should not stand in the way of it. How long would it take to negotiate something better? That will be too late.
And you “sheesh’d” me.
Sheesh.
And that bit of deflective bullshit is supposed to address anything I responded to you over? And you think I wouldn’t notice? Go.Away. You aren’t ready for the adult table yet.
gan,
this time I believe you are right!
They have been 2-3 months away for about 60 years!
This time they really really really are 2-3 months away.
And then, then, THEN they can send one of their missiles to?? Israel?
“…there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” – Condi Rice discussing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capabilities with Wolf Blitzer on Jan, 10th, 2003
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/16/is-the-iran-deal-liberal.html
Thanks for the link. The fiction that Coons is undecided on this is humorous. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t also macabre. All this article tells me is that Coons has lined up his no vote talking points, and they boil down to – this deal doesn’t do everything.
Well, no shit Sherlock.
Oh yeah, it also tells me that Michael Tomasky is being played for a sucker.