Obama Administration Won’t Release Full Iran Deal to Congress?

Some people in Congress are concerned because apparently the Obama Administration is holding secrets inside the recent "deal" with Iran and it looks like some "side deals" exist.

Now it looks like Congress is not being "allowed" to review those side deals.

It seems to have to do with the way inspections will be conducted.

Well this sounds similar to the trade deals being kept secret.

WTF is going on with big governments these days?

They all seem to feel "threatened" by public knowledge.

What *ARE* they hiding?

House Republican: Obama Administration Won’t Release Full Iran Deal to Congress

President Obama won’t allow Congress to review two key aspects of the Iranian Nuclear deal, Republican lawmakers learned from international partners last week.


Under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency would negotiate separately with Iran about the inspection of a facility long-suspected of being used to research long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

“The Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex,” said Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) in a statement Tuesday. “Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.”

The IAEA has been trying to gain access to the Parchin site since 2005, but Iran has refused

Hmmm

As unfortunate as it is... this is nothing new. The partisan politics in this country is a shame. I would bet that a large % of Republicans don't even read the bills that their own fellow Republicans write... they just vote in favor out of partisanship. Same goes with the democrats.

I wonder if his daughter is going to be interning on Iran's propaganda video shoots?

Anyway this stinks to high heaven.

How is this and the refusal to release details on the trade deal not impeachable offenses?

Side deals?

Show me a single bill in the last 20 years that wasn't loaded with pork and favors and Ill show you a pig that can fly backwards.

originally posted by: spinalremain
Side deals?

Show me a single bill in the last 20 years that wasn't loaded with pork and favors and Ill show you a pig that can fly backwards.

This isn't some deal with politicians to get a bridge to nowhere built. Keep watching CNN though.

This should not be possible. Maybe Iran-Contra, round 2.

Transparency in government, eh?

It is my understanding that the details of parts of the deal have not been released because they are either still being negotiated and/or have nothing to do with the US whatsoever.

The key parts this pertains to are inspections by the IAEA which the US is not involved with. Those details would not necessarily change the terms of the agreement to lift sanctions.

Sadly, I was wrong.

Most of my adult life I thought America would be sold out be the left. We weren't.

They gave everything away.

What I find most troubling is that I know that the people that argue in favor of the current administration have to be smarter than they appear. If President Obama was a Republican they would be calling for his head on a spike, but he's a Democrat so he's making the best of a bad situation. Never mind that fact that the situation is one of his own making.

Always with the same arguments:

Sanctions weren't working - then why did Iran come to the table?
Iran would have the bomb anyway if they want it - then why the charade of a deal?
America got everything they wanted/needed out of the deal - yet it's 180 degrees from where we started negotiating
It wouldn't matter who was President - this only happens when it's a Dem in the "big seat"

If a Democrat cannot take upon his/her shoulders the burden of responsibility that the office of President entails, perhaps it's time to dissolve the party and just be honest and call it the CPUSA. (after all their leadership hates personal responsibility as well).

a reply to: introvert

Hmmm.

You actually *trust* the politicians directly involved?

a reply to: 200Plus

A democrat president comes to the table to work out a deal to stop sanctions against Iran and this is how you respond?

Bit of a drama queen, aren't we now?

I know it's difficult to grasp, but this is the process needed to be taken in order to act like grown ups on the international diplomatic stage. If it were a republican in the White House, this process would still be needed and I would support it.

My opinion is that many of you would as well. But Obama is in office and this is the sort of crap we have to deal with. Obama is taking responsibility for this deal and I don;t understand how you can come to the conclusions you have.

Their are not logical, but I believe rooted in partisan politics. If so, you are no better than those you are shouting down.

originally posted by: introvert
It is my understanding that the details of parts of the deal have not been released because they are either still being negotiated and/or have nothing to do with the US whatsoever.

The key parts this pertains to are inspections by the IAEA which the US is not involved with. Those details would not necessarily change the terms of the agreement to lift sanctions.

What flavor Kool Aid do they serve?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Hmmm.

You actually *trust* the politicians directly involved?

That is irrelevant.

You posted a thread with a source that implies something nefarious is going on behind the scenes when it appears that is not the case. The process is still in motion and the brainwashed Right not only have to be against this, whether it's good for diplomatic relations or not, but also must inject the idea that a conspiracy is in play that is a threat to America.

When does honesty and logic come in to play here? This is a good thing, similar to building relationships with Cuba, but the nutters on the Right won't have any of that.

a reply to: introvert

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

Glenn Beck's Favorite, Saul Alinsky ... "Rules for Radicals"

a reply to: MoreBeer

What flavor Kool Aid to they serve?

Oh my, what a well thought-out and intelligent response you have there. Grammatical error aside, I'm sure it will be very popular among the ATS right-wing forum gang.

Do you wish to actually respond to my post and the points within, or is a drive-by all you can muster?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Glad you caught that as well.

SNIP
Never fails to amaze.

a reply to: introvert

No need to shame yourself.

The information/history is out there.

a reply to: introvert

I've pointed that out so many times, it's getting redundant.

Oh well, we soldier on.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: 200Plus

A democrat president comes to the table to work out a deal to stop sanctions against Iran and this is how you respond?

The President of the United States went out of his way to bargain away every chip in his pile in order to remove the sanctions against Iran. Sanctions that were put in place to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program. He made a deal that allows a program, provides sanction relief, and erases guarantees of compliance with the deal itself.

Who exactly is he President of again?

Seems like he trips over himself to aid every antagonist we've had in the last 60 years.

Ah, perhaps it's the old "peace through capitulation" tactic?