Wednesday, October 7, 2015

In Syria, Putin Does What Obama Wouldn't. And is Winning

It was only a year ago that Obama pledged that if Assad used chemical weapons he would launch a retaliatory missile strike from US missile cruisers in the gulf. Assad, having seen Obama fail to stand up, back up, or fulfill his word on anything in his entire 17 year political career including 6 years as president, laughed and then launched a sarin gas attack on Aleppo killing more than 300 children and more than a thousand adults.

MoveOn and other Tea Party Left groups launched an immediate campaign to convince Obama not to live up to his word, which is like trying to convince a ten year old not to eat brussel sprouts. For the Tea Party Left , launching a missile strike from a cruiser in the Gulf was "WAR!". That's what they called it. They circulated a petition rejected by 98% of their membership who refused to sign it,  calling for Obama to back down, another unnecessary waste of keystrokes.

Obama, instead of making good on his pledge decided to put his integrity to a vote. And his integrity lost. Again.

Most in congress refused to vote to give him the authority to launch the missile attack against Assad, an authority Obama didn't need in the first place but it was the cover he wanted and thought he needed to justify backing down. And so he did.

Ironically MoveOn has been circulating emails and petitions over the plight of the Syrian refugees. The irony is its a crisis they can take credit for helping to create since at the time they crowed in emails that it was their petition that influenced Obama to back off the missile  strike ( a preposterous assertion but if they want to pat themselves on the back for that they can do the same for the Syrian refugee crisis which might not have happened had the missile strike Obama promised taken place which would have severely damaged Assad's air power.)

Now Putin has bamboozled Obama again, like he did in Crimea and eastern Ukraine since Putin is now doing in Syria exactly what he persuaded Obama not to do after the Sarin gas attack. 

While it was Obama who backed down on the missile strike and also refused to arm the moderate Syrian rebels, it is Putin who is using his military to prop up the Assad regime by launching air and missile strikes against the rebels in rebel strongholds under the guise of attacking Isis.

Both Obama and new Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter have both said they are " concerned" ( why they left out the word " deeply" is anyone's guess) that there are no Isis fighters in any of the areas Putin is attacking and bombing. Which had to make Putin laugh. You can almost hear him saying, "okay go be concerned".

The upshot is, while Obama and those around him were under some kind of self delusion that all he had to do was say " Assad must go", and that would be enough,( maybe he should have said it ten times fast), while refusing to support the Syrian rebels fighting on the ground, the people actually trying to make that a reality, Putin is now doing for Assad and his side, what Obama wouldn't do for his ( a recurring theme for Obama from health care reform to Wall Street to Crimea and eastern Ukraine).

As a result Putin is winning. And air strikes are taking a heavy toll. The latest news out of Syria is that Assad, emboldened by Russian air strikes, has started a new ground offensive against the rebels, while Obama, Kerry and Carter are still figuring out that when Putin said he was going to help Assad in his "lawful fight against the terrorists", to Assad the people terrorizing him are the moderate Syrian rebels fighting to get rid of him, not Isis.

Which means that while Putin and Assad are winning they are also successfully pulling the glass over Obama's eyes. And once more, like in Crimea, like in eastern Ukraine, like with Obamacare like calling Isis " the junior varsity" all Obama decisions that not only failed but made things worse,  if Obama does nothing different or too little too late or another half baked ineffective policy decision, he will preside over yet  another policy failure in a failed presidency marked mostly by what he could have accomplished and didn't. 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

With Guns We Do Have a Mental Health Crisis in America: In Congress.

Republican Rep  Michael McCaul , Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, in responding to the mass casualty shooting at a community college in Roseburg Oregon,said the problem with this and other mass shootings is not a gun problem but a mental health problem in America.
He's right.  It is a mental health problem. And the mental health problem is with him and conservative members of congress who have seen over 300,000 Americans killed in gun violence since 2004 (compared to 36 killed in the U.S. by terrorism)  and have blocked every piece of meaningful gun control and safety legislation that would reduce the risk of this kind of gun violence. Including blocking all the tepid, lukewarm legislation proposed by the Obama administration  who wrongly thought that if the legislation was weak enough conservatives would go along.
The mental health problem with guns in America  is with conservatives in congress, in state
legislatures around the country, the leadership of the NRA and fringe lunatic gun owners who see guns as some kind of symbolic extension of themselves instead of what they really are, implements of self defense, sport and hunting. This isn't to say all gun owners see guns as some kind of symbolic  extension of their manhood or sexual appendage  (when was the last time there was a female mass murderer?) But it is to say that too many with mental problems do. And that includes gun owners with those kinds of mental problems who haven't committed any  crimes  but who can influence legislators  like Mike McCaul. 
When speaking of the NRA it has to be stated as "leadership" of the NRA  and not rank and file members because there is no indication that the NRA and their positions, represents or is embraced by any but the most radical, lunatic  fanatical NRA members, people who also fall in the category of America's mental health problem with guns and not the bulk of their membership.
 McCaul  who has been in the pocket of the NRA, displayed his mental health problems with guns some time ago when he blocked legislation that would have denied guns to people who were put on no fly lists by the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe you'd like to read that again, then go for a walk, think about it,  discuss it with your friends, and then ask where the real mental health problems are when it comes to guns.
People deemed dangerous enough by Homeland Security  to be in a data base  that would keep them off airplanes because they might blow it up were deemed okay by McCaul to buy guns.
If that's not enough to declare someone like McCaul mentally unfit for office then that's where the discussion has to start.
An even bigger indication of the mental health problems with conservatives in congress is that more than 87,000 Americans have been killed by gun violence since the shootings at Sandy Hook elementary school.

So by all means lets deal with the mental health problems in America with regards to guns. And all the other problems that need to be addressed. But it can start with congress,  the leadership of the NRA  And what to do about it.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Putin Tells Obama,Get Out of Syrian Airspace and Obama Says Okay.

Yesterday  Vladmir Putin sent a message to Obama and the U.S. blind siding Obama by giving only one hour's notice that Russia was going to begin air strikes in Syria and that the U.S. needed to get out of Syrian air space now to avoid any risk of confrontation. Obama said okay.
The Russian cover story is that they are going to fight terrorists on behalf of Assad.  And John Kerry, living in his unicorn fantasy world said, "We welcome all genuine efforts to fight Isis but we must not and will not be confused between the fight against Isis and supporting Assad".
That was John Kerry not General Buck Turdgison in Dr. Strangelove  who said it as Russian air strikes were targeting Syrian rebels in the city of Homs where there are no Isis fighters but is an anti-Assad rebel stronghold.
Kerry said that if Putin bombs targets unrelated to Isis he and Obama would be "gravely concerned". That is Obama's idea of laying down the law. You can almost hear Putin laughing and saying , okay we'll drop bombs and you be concerned.
Russia is in fact bombing targets unrelated to Isis and if Obama and Kerry have concerns that are grave that is nothing compared to the civilians in Homs who are now digging theirs.
Its clear to everyone but Kerry and Obama that Putin is doing for Assad what Obama wouldn't do for the Syrian rebels  when he ignored  the recommendations three years ago  of 3 Secretaries of Defense, one Secretary of State and one Director of the CIA to arm the moderate Syrian rebels against both Isis and Assad and now it's Putin taking control of the situation, coming to the aid of Assad who Obama has said repeatedly said must go. Which as everyone knows by now carries the weight and moral force of a Telebrands commercial.
Even on the usual pandering CNN, anchors were asking correspondents, " did Obama get played by Putin"?  It wasn't all that long ago that CNN did a segment on Ukraine that asked " did Obama get bullied by Putin"? It's gotten embarrassing. 
And Putin knows there will be no real consequences. Obama's  warning to Assad that if he used chemical weapons he would launch a missile strike against Assad's military was a toothless tiger.  As an aside,  this threat of a U.S. missile strike against Assad on behalf of Syrian civilians who were killed in a chemical weapons strike so horrified the people at MoveOn, ThinkProgress  and DFA who called a single retaliatory missile strike " war" , (just like it was "war" if the congress didn't go along with Obama's capitulation on the Uran nuclear deal)  that they circulated a petition begging Obama not to live up to his word and back down on the missile strike.  Which was a big waste of time because, to paraphrase a Geico commercial, Obama  not living up to his word is what he does.
Adding to the farce is the $500,000,000 the Obama administration finally decided to spend to train Syrian rebels.It belongs in the Guiness Book of World Records winning the Too Little Too Late award.  It has resulted in a grand total of five (5) , yes, 5 Syrian fighters now in the field. Five. That's $100,000,000 per fighter. A B1 bomber doesn't cost that much.
One reason the number of fighters is so small is because the Obama administration making, incredulously, another farcical decision,  refused to train or arm any Syrian fighter who wanted to fight against Assad as well as Isis,and would  only train those only willing to fight Isis. Which effectively drove away 99% of Syrian fighters who wanted to fight both. So while Putin bombs rebels on behalf of Assad, Obama refused to arm rebels fighting against Assad. Though he did say Assad had to go. 
Putin has  made clear his intentions. Its just taking Obama and Kerry a bit longer to come out of their unicorn fantasy world and figure it out when Kerry said, "we will not be confused". Sounds like they are confused. 
Putin said, "Russia will conduct air strikes on behalf of the Assad regime only in it's lawful fight against terrorist groups".  Obviously Obama and Kerry haven't figured out yet that to Assad the terrorist groups are the rebels. 
Kerry said "we will not be confused between the fight against Isis and supporting Assad". It sounds like they still are.
The final bit of farce came from Josh Ernst, Obama's press secretary when the reality of Russia conducting air strikes against the rebels not Isis was clear. Ernst tried to spin it by saying Russian air strikes on behalf of Assad was a sign of Assad's weakness. No it wasn't. It was a sign of Obama's.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Hillary Clinton dodges and deflects question about 911 and George W. Bush

On CBS' Face the Nation, Hillary Clinton was asked about a statement that Jeb Bush made during the Republican debate that his brother kept America safe. Clinton was asked if she agreed with that.

Her answer was one of the most obfuscated, circular non-answer dodges about a pivotal, life altering policy and political event in the country's history as has been given so far on any subject during the presidential campaign season. It was an obvious attempt to skirt the question about the unprecedented failure of a Republican president and to avoid both the truth and political controversy. It was not very becoming.

Clinton's answer to the question of whether George W Bush kept the country safe, was:

 " I think it's a complicated question because of course 911 happened. I was a senator from New York. And I was basically consumed by my resonsibility in my state and in the city.  So it did happen. And then I do give President Bush credit for  trying to bring the country together around  the threats that we did face. I have said the war in Iraq was a mistake.  I supported what happened in Afghanistan.  So if you sort it all out, its a mixed picture".

It was also an attempt to completely avoid answering the question.

It was not a complicated question and it was no mixed picture. And no,  George W. Bush not only didn't keep America safe, it was Bush and Rice's  irrefutable and well documented gross, even criminal negligence as president and national security advisor that were responsible for the deaths of 3000 people in a terrorist attack that ultimately changed America and changed the world, one that facts proved could have easily been prevented  had Bush acted on the specific intelligence he was given a month before the attack,  that not only was an Al-Qaeda attack against the US in the US imminent, it was going to involve the hijacking of U.S. airliners.

Clinton's answer did not have anything thing to do with the question  and was a nonsense answer. Saying that 911 happened is a non-answer answer. Everybody knows it happened.  And what she did as a senator had nothing to do with whether Bush kept the country safe when all the facts show he didnt.   Furthermore, Bush did NOT bring the country together around the threats we faced but divided the country  both on the invasion of Iraq and divided the country even further on the use of torture to get intelligence which is ironic since Bush and Rice had been handed all the intelligence they would have needed to prevent 911 and ignored it.

There was nothing to "sort out". It was a  clear attempt at a non-answer answer to  avoid the truth and wanting to avoid a controversy possibly because she knows Democrats would faint dead away before standing up to the truth had she told it.

There is not a shred of doubt that Bush, Rice and Cheney were responsible for allowing  the worst attack on American soil by a foreign enemy in the history of the United States. And they have never been held accountable.

It is this ridiculous reluctance or fear on the part of Democrats to criticize Republicans with the truth that is why Democrats lose elections. And make them look weak.

George W. Bush did not keep us safe and it was no mixed picture. And Bush compounded the problem with Iraq, where he used the 911 attack as the excuse to invade Iraq which neocons had wanted to do for years as Richard Clarke testified when he was literally ordered by Cheney to find a connection between the attack and Sadaam even though Clarke testified he told Cheney Sadaam had nothing to with it, it was Al-Qaeda. This is public knowledge.

In addition, the senate report by the Senate Intelligence Committee when Democrats had the majority proved beyond any doubt that the Bush administration used torture in violation of American values and U.S. law by the CIA  which was unnecessary and  ineffective and no actionable intelligence was ever gotten as a result of water boarding or "enhanced interrogation techniques". Every piece of valuable intelligence was gotten through conventional interrogations. Clinton could have said that too. And been a hero.

Although Clinton is the candidate and bears ultimately responsibility, the blame for this kind of circumvention and a reluctance to be tough is squarely on the shoulders of the  Democratic strategists, aides and politicians around Clinton who have already demonstrated the kind of lousy judgement that has made "Democratic strategist"  an oxymoron for 15 years as evidenced recently by the unnecessary, uncalled for and unjustified apology Clinton made about the emails.

Clinton was right the first time, knowing she did nothing wrong legally or ethically  in refusing to apologize, but recently, in giving in to the pressure Clinton was getting from weak, frightened Democrats who wouldn't go on the offensive against the media and Republicans for their unjustified attacks, it just made it worse. It's clear that after a year of refusing to give in to the attacks, Clinton decided to take bad political advice and its rubbing off in other areas. Like the nonsensical answer about Bush and keeping America safe.  It's called playing not to lose. Which is always a recipe for disaster.

Bush not only didn't keep us safe his administration was directly accountable for the deaths of 3000 people on Sept 11 as the 911 Commission exposed and then, in a panic, used illegal policies of torture to try and insure there was not a second attack because of the gross negligence regarding the first, the result of the Bush Administration's dismissing terrorism as a threat from day one of his administration which  left them unprepared and the country vulnerable. Clinton could have said that too.

It would have been nice if the former Secretary of State who will be asked to testify for the 7th time at the 7th Republican congressional hearing on Benghazi over the deaths of 4 Americans during a terrorist attack would have pointed out a Republican administration's accountability in the deaths of 3000 with no investigations by a Republican congress and said so instead of dodging the question.

For the record, Rand Paul who was up next on Face the Nation, either lied or is badly misinformed about Clinton as Secretary of State arming Syrian moderates which according to him allowed Isis to grow.

 It was Clinton, and three Secretaries of Defense who advised Obama to arm the moderates both against Assad and Isis more than three years ago and that Obama rejected it calling Isis the "junior varsity". That is what allowed Isis to become the threat it is.

 Now, as is typical of Obama they tried to arm the moderates in a too little too late move that has gone beyond farce after congress allocated $500 million to train moderate Syrian rebels,  resulting in five -- yes five -- Syrian fighters trained by the U.S. on the battlefield. Which averages out to $100 million spent by the Obama administration per fighter. So Paul got it wrong. Clinton didnt arm anyone in Syria.  At the time she advised it, her advice was rejected and events have proved it would've been the right thing to do.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

CNN turns 2nd Republican debate into 3 day promo - for CNN.

With CNN hosting the second Republican  debate, it's clear they are aware of the ratings Fox had with the first. According to Nielsen, a reported 24 million viewers watched the first debates, more than twice the audience for The Walking Dead though if you watched the debates you saw distinct similarities between the two.

But for a news organization who for the last few years has been to journalism what junk bonds are to Wall Street,whose ratings start with a zero,  a potential for 10 million viewers has to be exploited. And so CNN is pulling out all the stops.

For three days anyone turning on CNN would think there was nothing else happening in the world other than this debate. There is virtually nothing else they are talking about and its no accident. Its not a public service decision, CNN hasn't had one of those in 15 years. Its a marketing decision, just like the banners that take up a full third of the bottom of the screen promoting their nighttime entertainment style shows no matter what news story is being covered.

For three days they have even posted that silly countdown graphic that started counting down the time until the debate down to the seconds even when it was 72 hours away.

It is the kind of carnival barker journalism CNN has become with Wolf Blitzer the principle barker, but every other CNN anchor doing the same.

CNN is hoping to build up as much interest in their debate as possible in the hopes of snagging the millions of viewer CNN hasn't seen in two decades.

And they will try and wring every last ratings point they can get meaning they will be talking about nothing else for days after the debate, and then try to figure out more ways to exploit it. Maybe by strapping Martin Savage into the cockpit of Trumps jet a la MH-17.

It will probably have the opposite effect as it always does, driving people away who actually want to get some news.

And just so you don't miss the point, while Fox promoted the debate as " The First Republican Debate", CNN has opted to put in the word "BIG", on screen graphics, referring to it as "Big GOP debate tonight" , kind of like " Big Dance Tonight"  making no bones about what they are hoping for. Which is Big. As in ratings.

CNN has gotten so cheesy  and shameless about it they are doing promos for the debate featuring  interviews with the technicians and crew setting up the technical side of the debate telecast complete with cameras zooming in on sound mixers,  panning shots of the control room,  quick cuts of stage hands putting up lights, and  panning shots of the stage, because they want you to know, this is BIG.

Just in case you didn't get  it from all the other CNN promos.

NOTE:  According to the published Neilsen ratings for the debate, 22 million watched, short of Fox's 24 million but still the largest audience in the 35 year history of CNN.  Which means that if Trump's presidential bid fails you can count on CNN offering Trump the store to have him do a one hour political commentary show on CNN.

Friday, September 11, 2015

George W. Bush commemorates 911 by going on a sports radio talk show.

Back in the 50's there was a TV kids show called Howdy Doody that always opened with Buffalo Bob Smith yelling, " Hey kids, what time is it"?

With George W. Bush going on the sports radio talk show Mike and Mike today, Sept 11, it makes you want to yell, " Hey George what day is it"?

But if you were George W Bush or Condoleeza Rice who play acted National Security advisor in Bush's first term you probably wouldn't want to remember what day it was either.

As the 911 Commission exposed, and a torrent of facts, documents and testimony revealed, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, and  Dick Cheney were guilty of the worst case of criminal negligence, malfeasance, and dereliction of duty regarding the national security  of the United States in American history.

From the first day of his presidency as documents and testimony showed, Bush Rice and Cheney dismissed terrorism and Al-Qaeda specifically as a threat to the United States and believed that Bill Clinton had grossly exaggerated the threat. This despite the documents and testimony at the hearings that showed that during the transition period and in his national security briefings, Bush was told by the FBI, CIA, outgoing National Security advisor Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton himself that Al-Qaeda represented the most serious threat to U.S. national security in the world.

In exhibiting the kind of foresight and competence completely absent from the Bush and the Obama administrations, Berger told Bush and Rice that the threat to U.S. security by Al-Qaeda was so great, he predicted that the Bush administration would be dealing with Al-Qaeda more than any other single issue or problem throughout his entire presidency. Bush made sure that became true.

As Karl Rove boasted to Time magazine after Bush's election " The Bush administration is going to be ABC - Anything But Clinton" . If Clinton did it, Rove boasted, Bush was going to undo it. That not only applied to terrorism, in the end it also applied to the economy.

And so Bush, Rice, Cheney even Attorney General John Ashcroft, dismissed every piece of actionable intelligence which would have stopped the 911 attacks in its tracks. In fact the Assistant Director of the FBI testified under oath that when he went to see Ashcroft with what he thought was important information regarding terrorism Ashcroft told him " Don't you ever come into my office with anything related to terrorism again".

CIA intercepts of Al-Qaeda traffic in the summer of 2001, indicated the U. S. was going to be hit with a "spectacular " terrorist attack and Richard Clarke, the White House anti-terrorism chief for 4 presidents, Reagan,Bush 41, Clinton and now George W. Bush, testified that in August of 2001 he and CIA Director George Tenant were so alarmed by the intelligence showing there was going to be an "imminent" and "spectacular" terrorist attack by Al Qeada that he and Tenant were " running around the White House like men with their hair on fire" trying to get Bush and Rice to do something. They never did.

Incredulously,  Bush was also given a national security briefing on August 6,2001 where he was told in a Presidential Daily Briefing that not only was Al-Qaeda going to attack inside the U.S., there were already cells in the U.S., they had office buildings in New York city under surveillance, and so stupefying its hard to believe the news media and Democrats didn't beat the drum for Bush's resignation, Bush was told on August 6,2001 that the means of the Al Qaeda attack was going to involve the hijacking of U.S. airliners.

Bush did nothing. Rice did nothing. They dismissed all of it. And Bush went on vacation to Crawford. 

Had Bush or Rice simply ordered the FAA to issue a high alert to U.S. airports and airlines to be vigilant for a credible threat for potential hijackings by middle eastern men, 911 never would have happened.

The 911 hijackers showed up that day at Dulles and Logan airports all buying one way tickets to San Francisco. None had reservations so had to pay top price of $2500 for a one way ticket. They paid cash. And none had any luggage. And of course  were all middle eastern. What do you think any ticket seller or supervisor at any major airport for any airline would have done when confronted with those sets of facts and circumstances along with  a BOLO (Be On the Lookout) for middle eastern men for potential hijacking threat and to report any suspicious activity?

In fact the ticket seller at the Maine airport testified as much saying on that morning he sold a one way ticket to San Francisco connecting at Logan Airport to a middle eastern man without a reservation who paid the top price of $2500 for a one way ticket and paid cash. He thought it strange since he had never seen anything like that in 20 years at the Maine airport but because there hadn't been any directives, said nothing. The buyer was one of the hijackers.

When Condoleeza Rice was grilled during the hearings by committee counsel Richard Ben Vineste as to why with all that information including the fact that Al-Qaeda was going to hijack airliners, neither she nor Bush did anything , her answer was, " we didn't know the day, we didn't know the date, we didn't know the targets and we didn't know the names of the hijackers. We couldn't connect the dots. And we didn't know they were going to use planes as missiles".

So the National Security advisor to the President of the United States needed to know all that before even ordering or recommending to the president that  the FAA issue an alert? Because they didn't know the planes would be used as missiles? So hijacking airliners and holding hundreds if not thousands of passengers hostage would have been okay? 

Connecting the dots as everyone knows is a child's game. There are a series of dots all numbered and all you have to do is connect them consecutively and you get to see the whole picture. Rice admitted they couldn't, didn't, or wouldn't do it.

Stunningly the news media took Rice's preposterous but revealing answers and turned  a statement of gross incompetence into a term of art with " we couldn't connect the dots" becoming the expression of choice in Washington for years to come and is still used.

That it was an expression of  the worst case of gross incompetence in American history might make it understandable that it was adopted by the news media and politicians.

That both Democrats and the news media were so intimidated that they refused to hold Bush and Rice accountable and force their resignations showed not only cowardice , it led to more disasters like Iraq.  

 It's no secret why the media and Democrats were afraid. Republicans knowing what accountability would have meant for them were ready to accuse anyone attacking Bush as giving aid and comfort to the enemy and questioning their patriotism. And Democrats and the news media knew it and were intimidated. 

If Wolf Blitzer, CNN and other news outlets had gone after Bush, Rice and Cheney with just half the intensity with which  they went after Anthony Weiner over his consensual online sex chats, there never would have been a war with Iraq. 

To date Republicans have held 7 congressional hearings on Benghazi ostensibly because of 4 Americans killed. On the Sept.11,2001 attacks that killed 3000 they did nothing. And not a single Democrat has pointed out the hypocrisy.

If anyone doubts for a second that Bush, Rice and Cheney are aware they were responsible for allowing the 911 attacks consider this: Neither Bush, Rice nor Cheney has ever attended any memorial, service, rememberance  or commemoration of the 911 attacks. Not one in 14 years. Not any anniversary. Not the groundbreaking for 1 World Trade Center which would replace the twin towers. Not the opening of the 911 museum or it's dedication. Not anything in the 14 years since the attack. Because they know the attack succeeded because of their negligence. And had the decency to stay away.

But not from a sports radio talk show on the anniversary of that day.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

The Best Way to Tell if the Iran Deal is a Good One or Not.

It's probably fair to say that most people following the controversies over the Iran deal have never actually read it and are relying on what people who have read it on both sides are saying about it.

So who's right? Those who support the deal or those who oppose it?
Maybe the best way for anyone who hasnt actually read the deal to come to an informed conclusion is to evaluate what each side, especially those in congress who have to vote for or against it,  say in support of or opposition to the deal and base their conclusions on that though the most recent Pew Research poll, as of Sept 9, shows only 21% of Americans support the deal. A bad omen for Democrats.
Those who oppose the deal offer these facts:
Fact: The deal doesn't prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only delays it. Iran will be able to pursue a nuclear weapon in ten years if it chooses to at best and will have the hundreds of billions in sanctions relief to do so. This doesn't factor in Iran cheating and fooling IAEA inspectors.
Fact: The deal lifts the ban on Iran having ICBM's, something General Dempsy, Obama's outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said should never happen, and whose only purpose is to deliver a nuclear warhead at distances as far away as the United States.
Fact: The arms embargo will be lifted allowing Iran to buy and sell arms and provide them terrorists around the world, something even Obama admits. 
Fact: The former Deputy General of the IAEA has said the inspection arrangment is not nearly good enough and it will be easy for Iran to cheat.And that allowing Iran to inspect itself at sites like Parchin where they had been caught cheating before trying to develop triggers for a nuclear bomb is ridiculous.
Fact: Iran said it has no intention of abiding by UN resolution 2231 which supported the deal and said they will not abide by the arms embargo which is to be lifted in a few years..Rouhani said," We will buy weapons anywhere we deem necessary. We won't wait for anybody's  permission or approval and won't look at any resolution.  We will sell weapons to anywhere we deem necessary." And he said it on television.
Fact: Rouhani said that the only way there can be middle east peace is for Iran to be able to stand up to its enemies militarily. He said, " How can a weak country  unable to stand up to the military power of its neighbors, rivals and enemies, achieve peace"? (That enemy wouldn't be Israel would it? And since Israel has nuclear weapons, and since Rouhani has pointed out the necessity of Iran being able to "stand up" militarily to its enemies, isn't that  a clear  warning shot that Iran has every intention of eventually developing a nuclear weapon as soon as they can ?)
Fact: Throughout the course of the deal Iran will be allowed to declare military sites off limits to inspections and,that only certain declared nuclear sites can be inspected (besides Parchin which Iran will inspect itself)For any undeclared site that is not military the IAEA has 24 days to prove to a 7 country panel there are violations at the site. Of course if they could prove that without inspecting the site there would be no reason to inspect the site. So no wonder Iran loves the deal.)
Fact: The deal is heartily endorsed by Iran's president and Iran's top military chief and the Ayatollah
Fact: Ayatollah Khamenei said on Sept 9 "Israel will never see the coming 25 years".

Those who support the deal and say: 

"What's the alternative"?
"Anyone who thinks there can be a better deal is living in a unicorn fantasy world"
"It's not what I had hoped for".

"It's this deal or war with Iran".

"There is no better deal available now" ( and why does it have to be right  now? There is no better deal available now because this is the deal Obama agreed to and Iran accepted and is thrilled).
Wendy Wasserman Schultz: "The White House assured me the inspections can be enforced" (why did she need the White House to assure her? Its the IAEA who does the inspections. It's not clearly spelled out in the deal? And she is voting for the deal based on Obama;s assurances when even he admits he hasn't seen the IAEA protocol made with Iran on inspections?)
Jerrold Nadler: "Obama promised me he'll use military force if necessary to stop Iran from getting a bomb" (If necessary?  Isn't  this deal supposed to prevent the need for military force? Wasn't it supposed to be the substitute for military force? Wasn't that the whole point?)
Obama: "The people who oppose the deal are the very people whose judgement got us into the war in Iraq" ( so far those who support the Iran deal include Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Colin Powell to name just a few supporting the deal whose judgement  got us into the war in Iraq).
Senator Mikulski: "For all it's flaws it's the best way to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon"  (its either the best deal that could have been negotiated or it has a lot of flaws. It cant be both.)
MoveOn: Its Republican war hawks who are against the deal ( Like Chuck Schumer, Robert Menedez, Ben Cardin, Joe Manchin Steve Israel,  and Nita Lowery all liberal or moderate  Democrats?)
MoveOn;" It's 60 days or its war with Iran!. Those opposing the deal are war mongers who want war." (so those who wanted war with Iran all along need this deal to fall through to start a war they could have started 15 years ago? And if the deal falls through, then what? Obama starts a war? The president who reneged on a pledge for a missile strike against Assad if he used chemical weapons is going to start a war? Who exactly starts this war in 60 days if the deal falls through?)
Obama: "Those who oppose the deal have "common cause" with Iran's hardliners"  (like  Iran's top military commander who loves the deal and  who congratulated Assad for humiliating the U.S. and the Ayatollah Khaemeni who has also endorsed the deal?)
Obama: "99% of everyone supports the deal"  (CNN polls showed 52% want congress to kill the deal  and in new Sept. 9 Pew Poll only 21%  say they support it).
Michigan senator Gary Peters: "despite my serious reservations I will reluctantly vote against a motion of disapproval".(is that a quadruple negative?)
Senator Wyden: " This agreement  with the duplicitous and untrustworthy  Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned. It's not the agreement I would have accepted but it's better than no deal at all" (If its not the deal he would have accepted why is he accepting it? And whatever happened to "no deal is better than a bad deal"?)
UK Foreign secretary Phillip Hammon: "We want to ensure the nuclear deal is a success by encouraging trade and investment once sanctions were lifted". Really? So all Israel and the U.S. had to do all this time was open a McDonald's in Tehran and make some trade deals and that would have done the trick? Who knew?)
Hammond: "There is a huge appetite  (in the UK) both on the part of our  commercial and industrial businesses to engage with the opportunity of Iran opening up and there is a huge appetite  for our financial institutions to support that activity". I bet there is. But don't forget keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That's important too right?
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who supports the deal said on Sept.9: " Israel will cease to exist in 25 years. Israel will not see the coming 25 years."  And Netanyahu was worried. How silly. And on improving future relations with the United States and negotiating other issues, Khamenei said, " There will be no future negotiations on anything with the United States. We ousted the Great Satan. We will not let it ( to Khamenie we are an "it") in through the window."
Hillary Clinton on supporting the deal: "Diplomacy is the balancing of risk". (No it's not. Diplomacy is not  the balancing of risk. Diplomacy is supposed to eliminate future risks not balance them. Diplomacy seeks  to avoid risks by solving a political or territorial conflict by an agreement between the parties that permanently resolves the conflict without the use of force or other means of conflict to prevent future risk.   It's purpose is to remove and resolve conflicts, threats and future risk not balance it. If there is still a risk Iran can get a nuclear weapon in spite of this deal it's not diplomacy it's stupidity. )
On the question of what happens in ten years when the deal expires and Iran has ICBM's, the arms embargo had been lifted,  they have hundreds of billions in sanctions relief and can legally pursue nuclear weapons?
John Kerry: "We'll see what happens,  senator".
And Democrats wonder why they lose elections?