Liberals keep talking about not signing the Iran Nuclear Deal as starting a war, but it’s the same sanctions Iran has been under for over 3 decades. Sanctions which were originally imposed by Pres. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. They were tightened again in 1984 after Iran was invaded Iraq, as Iran turned to the world to try and buy nuclear weapons with which to “bring death upon it’s enemies”. Then again sanctions were tightened in 2013 when Congress passed even stricter sanctions by a vote of 400 to 20; there were 201 Democrats in office at the time and all considered allies of Obama at the time. It should also be noted that the Secretary of State, Hillary R. Clinton, was the most outspoken supporter of tougher sanctions on Iraq during her time in office.
In an article on the Daily Cos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/18/1412996/-The-most-incredibly-lucid-explanation-by-a-US-Senator-of-why-the-Iran-Deal-MUST-be-supported), featuring Senator Martin Heinrich voicing his belief as to why this deal must be made is very interesting since in 2013 Heinrich voted “yea” on S RES 65 – A resolution supporting the full implementation of US and international sanctions against Iran. Urging President Obama to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation. The resolution passed in the Senate by a vote of 99-0 on May 22, 2013. (http://ballotpedia.org/Martin_Heinrich)
The article in question is long, dense and pedantic. It shouldn’t garner any real political support from Liberals anywhere. In fact, it should make us all ask 1 question:
Why did the entire Democratic party do a complete reversal on it’s position to impose ever more restrictive sanctions on Iraq in less than 2 years?
While we have our own ideas on this subject, we would love to hear yours.
0
0
0
0
0
0
