Yesterday there was a House Intelligence Committee briefing about the situation in Iran. The Administration would like to get the AIPAC shills in both parties to calm the hell down while they're defusing a difficult and persistent problem with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The last time the far right got involved with this kind of thing, we wound up with a nuclear-armed North Korea that can get away with almost anything now. Obama is trying to prevent that from happening in Iran. Hardliners-- in America and in Iran-- are working against the success of the negotiations. Michele Bachmann, for example, walked out of the hearing declaring that the agreement with Iran is "very disturbing." To Bachmann its just a game of gotcha she can play highlighting her deranged racist hatred of Obama.Although most Americans-- in fact even most Republican voters-- back the peace process and want to avoid war with Iran, Republicans are in one of two toxic camps-- the ones who want war or the ones who want to just play politics with a delicate issue.
Noting that Cantor is “very concerned with where the president is leading us,” the source said the No. 2 GOP House leader intended to work closely with Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) to produce a legislative response.Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), said, “The overwhelming sentiment [among House Republicans is] this was an agreement that was foolish, dangerous, and that we need to do something and push forward.”Many Republicans and some Democrats have criticized the nuclear pact because it does not insist that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment.Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has asserted Iran got more than it gave up, saying it “does not seem proportional.”Cantor spokesman Rory Cooper said, “The leader does not believe the interim agreement the White House negotiated with Iran was in our nation’s best interests, so he will work with members on both sides of the aisle to determine that any final deal definitively addresses serious congressional concerns.”According to several participants at the Tuesday morning meeting, House Republicans focused on several possible responses to the six-month agreement endorsed by the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Iran. Under the deal, Iran agreed to enrich less uranium and allow nuclear weapons inspections in exchange for the elimination of nearly $7 billion in sanctions.One option would be pressuring the Senate to consider new sanctions on Iran. The House this summer passed a bill with bipartisan support to do just that, 400-20.Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has repeatedly noted that the House passed an Iran sanctions bill and that it is sitting in the Senate.Contrary to the wishes of the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Schumer have indicated the upper chamber will tackle a companion bill next week.The other option for House Republicans would be a resolution to formally disapprove of the interim deal.“I think that we should have a sense of the House that we oppose the deal,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a senior Foreign Affairs Committee member. Some Democrats would likely vote for such a measure, though Rohrabacher suspects “there are a lot of people on the Democratic side of the aisle who seem to feel compelled to support the administration on anything they possibly can, and this might fall within that range because you’ve got a Democratic president under attack.”More than a few Republicans, including Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (Texas), have suggested the Iran agreement was timed to distract from the disastrous rollout of ObamaCare.
But crazy warmongers like Bachmann, Cantor (AIPAC's go-to-Republican), Rohrabacher, Schumer, Reed and Royce didn't even come close to the overreaction of Duncan Hunter, Jr, the severely alcoholic son of the corrupt San Diego ex-Congressman of the same name. Congress is drilled with sad sacks like Hunter; they don't always detonate like this though. Hunter was on CSPAN yesterday insulting Middle Easterners as inherently dishonest and not worth making a deal with. Instead he advocated nuking them. Hunter's "plan" would mean at least 10 million dead Iranians, probably many more. Iran/Persia has been around for a very long time and their people have a notoriously long memory.
House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., threw down that bold gauntlet Wednesday morning during a C-SPAN interview in which he also suggested Middle East “culture” fosters dishonest negotiators.Asked if war with Iran is inevitable, Hunter replied: “I sure as Hell hope not.”But if push came to shove and US officials deemed strikes necessary, Hunter turned hawkish.He said any American strike would be a “massive aerial bombing campaign,” adding that such a mission should not feature any “boots on ground.” Then, Hunter said the US should use its “tactical nuclear weapons” on Iranian targets.A Congressional Research Service states the US posses “a wide variety of systems that could carry nuclear warheads,” including “short-, medium-, and long-range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs.”“The United States [has] deployed these weapons with its troops in the field, aboard aircraft, on surface ships, on submarines, and in fixed, land-based launchers,” according to CRS. “The United States articulated a complex strategy, and developed detailed operational plans, that would guide the use of these weapons in the event of a conflict.”Notably, Shelden Adelson, the top political donor to Republican candidates, also recently called for the US to nuke Iran.Kingston Reif of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation told Defense News that “the preventative, first-use of nuclear weapons against Iran would have a devastating impact on US national security and dismember US power and standing in the world.”“That a senior Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee is even suggesting such a possible course of action is the height of reckless irresponsibility and so far out of bounds it is astonishing,” Reif said. “The first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would guarantee a mad Iranian dash to acquire nuclear weapons to deter future such US attacks, likely convince other potential US adversaries in the region and around the world to acquire their own nuclear weapons to ward off a potential future US attack.”Hunter also slammed the recent preliminary pact between Tehran and the UN Security Council, under which Iran has agreed to cease some nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief and facility inspections.“Iran has to do nothing,” Hunter said, saying the Obama administration intends to merely “pray Iran will act differently” than its various leaders have “for the last 40 years.”Echoing other congressional Republicans and conservative pundits, Hunter said the White House and other Security Council nations erred in inking a preliminary Iran deal that allows Tehran to enrich any uranium. Hunter said Iranian officials are “not trustworthy,” then said all Middle Easterners-- due to their “culture”-- cannot be trusted at the negotiating table.“It is part of the Middle East culture” to “do anything you can … to get the best deal,” Hunter said.Asked by a C-SPAN host if he believes all Middle Easterners are liars, Hunter did not directly discount the notion.The conservative HASC member also accused, citing the Iran deal, the Obama administration of “making friends with our former enemies” while purposely distancing America from longtime allies in the region like Saudi Arabia.When a caller suggested Hunter and other GOP lawmakers are unwilling to “give peace a chance” with Iran, he suggested again that Iran is not a rational, honest negotiator.
Hunter didn't appear drunk when he was on CSPAN. His inland San Diego district (CA-50) is probably the reddest in California. Last year, Obama did worse there (38%) than in any other district other than Kevin McCarthy's, which is rapidly getting bluer due to Hispanic demographic changes. Hunter, one of Congress' most racist Members, is an extremist when it comes to shipping Hispanics back to Mexico.He's never faced a serious Democratic challenge, winning reelection in 2010 with 63% and last year with 68%. The poorly-led (to be polite) DCCC is not developing a multi-cycle operational plan to defeat Hunter and didn't bother recruiting a candidate to run against him next year and have shown no interest in backing James Kimber, the progressive being supported by local Democrats.Last night Rachel Maddow waxed positively poetic on this. I don't think anyone else even covered it. What a performance! You should watch it: