Skip to comments.White House to push Senate to delay new Iran sanctions
Posted on 10/24/2013 4:37:04 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House will host a meeting of aides to Senate committee leaders on Thursday seeking to persuade lawmakers to hold off on a package of tough new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, a senior Senate aide said.
The White House will press for another delay on a sanctions bill that had been expected to come to a vote in the Senate Banking Committee last month, but was held back after appeals from President Barack Obama's administration to let negotiations on Iran's nuclear program get under way.
The aide said Republicans would resist further delay, but that the decision was in the hands of Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, the committee's chairman, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also a Democrat.
Aides to Johnson and Reid were not immediately available to comment.
While Congress has sought harsher sanctions on Iran, the administration wants more time to give negotiations over Iran's nuclear program a chance. The negotiations that include six world powers are due to resume early next month in Geneva.
The White House confirmed that there would be a meeting on Thursday, but a spokeswoman would not comment on whether the administration would push for further delay in the sanctions.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The outfits who sell stuff to Iran by working around the sanctions.
Delay sanctions to help Iran, obamacare delay to help Americans, not so much...
White House to push anything is a sick joke.
Fast and Furious
The Saudis are already unhappy with Obama over Iran so I guess he’ll just spit in their eye ... because he can.
Treason anybody? Anybody?
Brilliant negotiating ploy—give the other guys what they want before you sit down and negotiate.
They delay sanctions against the raggies but won’t delay penalties against Americans who don’t obey Barry’s “law of da land” and sign up for communist healthcare.
Tin foil hat time.
Obama wasn’t financed by the Saudis. He was financed by the Iranians.
Here's the passage at issue:In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Pauls Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.