Colorado Republicans Freak Out Over Iran Nuclear Deal

Negotiations_about_Iranian_Nuclear_Program_-_the_Ministers_of_Foreign_Affairs_and_Other_Officials_of_the_P5+1_and_Ministers_of_Foreign_Affairs_of_Iran_and_EU_in_LausanneAs the New York Times reports:

Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States said they had reached a historic accord on Tuesday to significantly limit Tehran’s nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions.

The deal culminates 20 months of negotiations on an agreement that President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency. Whether it portends a new relationship between the United States and Iran — after decades of coups, hostage-taking, terrorism and sanctions — remains a bigger question.

Mr. Obama, in an early morning appearance at the White House that was broadcast live in Iran, began what promised to be an arduous effort to sell the deal to Congress and the American public, saying the agreement is “not built on trust — it is built on verification.”

Leading Jewish progressive advocacy group J Street praises the agreement in a statement today:

The deal is complex and multi-faceted, and it will take some time to analyze all its features. However, from what we have seen so far and what we have learned from President Barack Obama and the negotiators, this agreement appears to accurately reflect the parameters set forth in the April 2 framework.

It also appears to meet the critical criteria around which a consensus of US and international non-proliferation experts has formed for a deal that verifiably blocks each of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon.

We congratulate President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the other members of the P5+1 for having the resolve, determination, patience and persistence to bring such a difficult negotiation to a successful conclusion.

It will be important for Congress to carefully review this agreement on its merits and at the same time be mindful of the likely consequences of its rejection: a collapse of diplomacy and international sanctions as Iran pushes forward with a nuclear program unimpeded. [Pols emphasis]

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

Don’t tell any of this “diplomacy” stuff to GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, who is vowing to help scuttle the deal:

“The economic sanctions should be strengthened and only relaxed when Iran stops engaging in state-sponsored terrorism,” said Coffman, a Marine Corps combat veteran. “From my experience in the region, watching Iran fund terrorist attacks against my fellow Marines, I have learned that Iran cannot be trusted. I will stand with our ally Israel in opposing this agreement when it comes before Congress.”

Meanwhile, House freshman class president Rep. Ken Buck is more or less having a nuclear meltdown of his own via Twitter:


Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs).

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs).

Rep. Doug Lamborn says flat-out–we’re going to war “in all likelihood.”

The deal seems worse than I thought was possible. It seems this administration has already capitulated on even the minimal goals that were stated at Lausanne. The concessions are staggering. We will not have the “anytime-anywhere” inspection regime, Iran will not dismantle its centrifuges but instead would be assisted by the major powers in their research and development. Finally it seems that the administration has capitulated even on the U.N arms embargo that will be lifted in five to eight years.

Do not be fooled. The options are not between a bad deal and war; on the contrary, it is a bad deal that in all likelihood will pave the way to war, and it is our task to prevent that from happening.

Rep. Scott Tipton (R).

Rep. Scott Tipton (R).

Rep. Scott Tipton’s statement is perhaps a bit less incendiary in its rhetoric, but still claims the deal “would further destabilize the Middle East, cements Iran as a permanent nuclear threat to our allies in the region as well as our own national security interests, and rewards Iran’s bad behavior.”

As you can see, there’s a large disconnect between…well, Republicans, at least Colorado’s Republican congressional delegation, and the overwhelming majority…of the rest of the world.

We tried several variations, but there’s just no nice way to say that.

50 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. bullshit! says:

    Shorter Lamborn: "MMM WAR! Means more food for my family."

    (Men in Black reference)

  2. Big Time says:

    Colorado GOPers and all GOPers empowered Iran by supporting the Iraq invasion – these two bit hypocrites need to remember their "thinking" is what led Iran to an accelerated nuclear program – they made Iran a much more powerful country than it was pre-Iraq war. 

    Clowns, every last one of the GOP – two bit huckster clowns who will say absolutely anything and everything to get elected, only to enact policy that blows up the world, whether it's a deregulated Wall St to blow up the financial markets and economy, or invading Iraq and blowing up the world. 

    • Republican 36 says:

      Messrs. Coffman, Buck, Lamborn and the other GOP officeholders need to look at recent history. Early in the last decade President George W. Bush proclaimed the “axis of evil” which included, in his opinion, Iraq, Iran and North Korea. What happened next – he invaded Iraq and overthrew its government without the slightest bit of evidence to legitimize his invasion.

      Now put yourself in Iran's shoes after the Iraq invasion. The Iranian leadership is looking at the world and they see the leader of the most powerful nation in the world call them one of the three nations making up the "axis of evil" and that same leader has just invaded one of the three, without provocation, and that country happens to be right next door so the army of the most powerful nation in the world is literally sitting on Iran's doorstep ready, from their perspective, to pounce. If you’re the Iranian government what would you think and do in those circumstances? Its fairly obvious. They wanted to obtain nuclear weapons so the same country that invaded Iraq couldn't invade them without paying a terrible and unacceptable price. They wanted to make sure they could survive. We are here because Bush, again without provocation, threatened the existence of three nations, and then attacked one of them, right next door.  And, of course, North Korea has accelerated its nuclear program, including its ballistic missile program.

      Nations like individuals have a survival instinct. Bush activated that instinct in Iran. He should have known better.

  3. BlueCat says:

    Incidentally J Street is no fringe group. While the old ultra hawk American Jewish organizations and their lobbies still make the most noise and wield the most political power the majority of actual American Jews, by a considerable margin, support the policy positions that J Street supports. A majority of American Jews realize that as hard as it might be to get to a viable two sate solution, both because the Netanyahu governments have worked so hard for so long to create facts on the ground to make that impossible and to neuter and humiliate every moderate leader on the Palestinian side and because of equally boneheaded Palestinian leaders, it is the only chance for the survival of state of Israel. Period. We all know the fate of a minority in power trying to keep the lid on a disempowered minority which is Israel's future without two completely autonomous states or thorough ethnic cleansing which isn't going to happen. 

    As an aside, isn't it kind of ridiculous that the official international world of government and diplomacy is still required to deny knowledge of the fact that Israel has been a nuclear power ever since American students now old enough for medicare could hear all about it from their tour bus driver way back when? That Israel's nuclear capability had to be completely ignored, like the Emperor's nakedness, in these negotiations? Especially since, from the beginning, Israel has kept it only a wink wink secret while making damn sure everyone, especially their neighbor's, knew about it because it's not a deterrent if your enemies don't know you have it. Heck, If I were Iran I'd want my own too.

  4. mamajama55 says:

    Is this just about terrifying people so they vote Republican? Scaring us into war?

  5. Republicans – anti-Obama-anything since 2008 (and retroactively since 1961).

    Look, folks. The alternatives are: (1) this accord, which should keep Iran at a year's distance from a nuclear weapon for at least a decade, or (2) Iran continues developing a nuclear weapon – which they were reportedly 2-3 months away from developing before these talks started – and we wind up in a massive land/air war, initiated by an Israeli bombing campaign, that would dwarf Iraq and Afghanistan (not my opinion – that of the US Armed Forces).

    That's it. There's no Third Way, no massive US/Israeli response (short of nuking Iran into a slag pile) that would be quick and painless. And, frankly, we'll win a lot more support from the Iranian people (who generally like Americans and use American products) through open commerce than through more sanctions.

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Some good common sense there. You did overlook one thing. The Islamic bomb already exists. Pakistan has had the bomb now, for what, 20 years?

      • mamajama55 says:

        Pakistan does not equal Iran. Both are Islamic countries, but they have little else in common – they have one short border in common, different terrorist groups, (Taliban & Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Hezbollah and Hamas in Iran), different enemies.  We have our own terrorist groups in the United States – one terrorist went to a black church two weeks ago, and murdered nine people. Should we be nuked? Are we hopeless?

        Once again, I post these pictures. If we bomb Iran, we bomb these people who marched by the hundreds of thousands for democracy. Remember? It wasn't that long ago. Moussavi supporters march for fair elections in 2009

        • BlueCat says:

          CHB's point is a good one. If anything Pakistan represents a higher risk of nuclear capability falling into the hands of the most extreme batshit crazy terrorists.  The central government of Iran exercises highly reliable control within its own borders while the government of Pakistan does not and there is far more good will toward the west to be found among the sophisticated educated people of Iran than among the people of Pakistan. And Israel has the bomb too. Not Islamic, though pretty soon most of the people under its single state control will be, but Middle Eastern.

          On the plus side, as wide spread as the damage and poison traveling outward from any nuke ground zero is, it would be hard for these players to nuke each other or other neighbors without screwing their own people. 

      • vanbarbee says:

        When did we start talking about Pakistanis?

        • mamajama55 says:

          B/c CHB said that Pakistan has a nuclear bomb, therefore by extension, Iran as another Islamic country must have one, too. Or something. To be fair, maybe CHB's point was that since Islamic Pakistan has had nukes for 20 years, and Israel still exists, that maybe we shouldn't panic??

          • vanbarbee says:

            But you replied to him, not the other way around…so confused. 

          • BlueCat says:

            CHB  replied to PR that he made some good points but that there is already an Islamic bomb. This comment of yours precedes anything I said about or in response to CHB, which I did just now an hour or so after you made this comment. I'm wondering if you're confused about how to use reply in the proper box or trace replies back to the proper comment. 

            • vanbarbee says:


              12:46 PM: The original comment by Phoenix which says NOTHING about Islamic bombs
              2:57 PM: CHB says something about the Pakistanis already having a bomb…
              4:42 PM: I ask why we are talking about the Pakistanis in response to CHB, replying to his comment, not no one else
              4:49 PM: mamajama explains why she (I assume) was talking about Pakistanis, which itself was in response to CHB, replying to my comment
              5:33 PM: I admit my confusion over the ordeal, replying to mamajama
              6:14 PM: You insult me by implying I don't know how to use the internet…at no point did I reply to any of your comments (which appear to have happened well after the fact, at 6:08 PM in regards to CHB). If you actually look at the comment boxes, mine is within CHB's, not yours. 
              6:28 PM: Still, no one has fucking answered my question as to why we're talking about the Pakistanis.

              • BlueCat says:

                You apparently don't because my response is to mama not you. I hit the reply button in her comment box and my reply appears within her comment box, not yours. A reply under your box does not result from hitting your reply button. A reply to you appears inside your comment box. 

                As for the Pakistanis, CHB simply pointed out that they too have the bomb. Prior to that I pointed out that Israel has the bomb but everyone is both expected to know that they do and simultaneously to officially pretend not to know. These things do have a bearing on one another. It's not really that confusing. Relations with and issues involving any one country don't exist in a vacuum.

                • vanbarbee says:

                  Do I get to put a response down here or do you still think I'm spam coloradopols?

                  Great, it works now.

                  I’m sorry for the initial reaction, at the time it was in fact displaying your comment as a reply to my comment and not mamajamas for whatever reason. My computer was trying to commit seppuku at the time, so that may have factored into it. I’ve gone to Microsoft, voiced my concerns, and left no survivors.

                  CHB bringing up Pakistan was just out of left field, and too many people put in their two cents after the fact. I’d love the opportunity to delete comments, but it turns out wordpress is as utterly useless as the aforementioned tech company. I will go voice some of my concerns to them…

              • mamajama55 says:


                It can get confusing around here.

                But we haven't even begun to bewilder. Wait until we have a "Caption this…" thread, which generates 100 different comments, insults, defenses of comments which were made to someone else, etc. Plus, the website sometimes won't refresh, and you won't see the latest replies to your comments until five minutes later.

                You'll get the hang of it. Suffice to say on this one, I was responding to CHB's point, that Pakistan, an Islamic state, had had nuclear capability for 20 some years.

                I went off on a tangent, which may have contributed to your confusion.

                Welcome to Pols!


                Don’t take the user validation screen personally – we all had to prove we’re human, because Pols had been swamped with spam posts.

          • BlueCat says:

            I've looked all through this thread and can just find one short comment by CHB . I don't know quite how you get from his remark that there already is an Islamic bomb to the meanings and alternative meanings you're attributing to him. As for Israel still existing it helps that everyone has known for the better part of a half century that Israel has nukes.

            • BlueCat says:

              Note to van. The above comment is also a reply to mama appearing within her comment box by virtue of my having hit the reply button in that box. The boxes nest. after several accumulate you have to trace it though the nest to see who is answering whom.

  6. Big Time says:

    Hey Ken Buck – the NRA is already killing scores of Americans each and every day – 30K dead, 70K shot & injured, 300K gun crimes … each and every year. 

    More Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 than Americans who died serving in ALL wars the United States fought. 

    With friends like the NRA & the GOP who needs ISIS?

  7. Gilpin Guy says:

    I think that they said about the exact same things when the US entered into an international agreement to eliminate Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons.  Any reports of chemical attacks by the Syrian government since the destruction of those weapons?  Didn't think so.

    It'll be fun to see how this plays out next year when all the hub-bub is a distant memory and gas is at $2 a gallon again.

  8. Gilpin Guy says:

    Maybe they gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize too soon.  They should have probably waited until the ink on his veto of the colossal piece of shit that Republicans are going to send him is dry.

  9. FrankUnderwood says:

    Are these the same Repubs whose leader, St. Ronnie (whose administration did not negotiate w/ terrorists) negotiated with the Iranians by running guns to the Contras in Central America?  And wasn't this happening around the same time that the Iranian-supported terrorists in Lebanon were killing the Marines that Major Mike is referring to?

  10. Zappatero says:

    of course, before we go to war we'll need to beef up the Pentagon, following the bipartisan* "PayGo" budget rules**,  and take the money for more guns and bullets and soldiers and Halliburton's margin from elsewhere is the budget. Obviously, the best targets for that gun money will be Medicare, food stamps, health care for the poor, education, etc……….it's a Win-Win! 

    * – one more reason to be skeptical of anything both sides can agree to in today's Washington, DC.

    ** – rules which can be revoked at any time on any bill, but rules that give cover to cowardly politicians*** who don't want to have to make tough decisions on spending and taxes.

    *** – what are the frickin' odds it would be Michael Bennet who sponsored this piece of budgetary bullshit that continues to hamper our economy and embolden Republican shenanigans? 

    • OTOH, it has gotten us through several years with only a single government shutdown – and it's sounding increasingly like it will get us through another few months and possibly another year.

      Given the alternatives that could pass a Republican controlled Congress, sequestration doesn't sound so horrible.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.