Posted on 03/29/2015 7:17:26 AM PDT by Dave346
House Speaker John Boehner said Iran would not hold up its end of any agreement over its nuclear program, and that he was ready to ratchet up sanctions on the country if needed.
Boehner said on CNN's state of the union that Iran's leaders "have no intention of keeping their word," and the fact that they are even negotiating is evidence current sanctions on Iran are working.
Boehner opposes an agreement the Obama administration and other countries are negotiating to try to convince Iran to curtail its nuclear program in return for an easing of economic sanctions.
He and most of the rest of the GOPe House and Senate are all talk ...no walk.
*************
The only walking the GOP does is for the purpose of retreating, to go backwards. Its the White Flag Party.
Unfortunately Boehner is just the symptom of the larger disease within his party.
Anything Boehner says is nothing but empty rhetoric designed to mislead. He has no credibility whatsoever on anything. He has all the gravitas of a used car salesman.
Why wouldn’t they? They got everything they wanted.
AMEN
Sheeple
the iranians word is every bit as good as is our quota boy leader obammy.
That's not new, they known that since Dec 2013.
The issue was never about whether or not there would be sanctions, everyone was in agreement on the sanctions if no agreement was reached.
The conflict arose in Dec 2013 when the neocon Republicans, led by Mark Kirk, and Liberal Interventionist democrats, led by Robert Menendez wanted to pre-emptively list, with a congressional act, the additional sanctions that congress would impose if and when the negotiations failed. The purpose was threaten Iran, and induce them to consent.
But those opposed to the pre-emptive sanction said that would only undermine the negotiations, and it would be better to wait until the negotiations fail before they apply negotiations.
In 2015, the issue of pre-emptive sanctions is moot because now the end of negotiations is close at hand.
Now the key legislation is Bob Corker's bill which requires congressional approval of any agreement that Obama may reach with Iran, which Obama will veto, so the question is whether or not there is 67 votes in the senate to override Obama's veto.
But if P5 plus one doesn't reach agreement with Iran, then Corker's bill will be moot.
I would describe her attitude as "waspish".
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.