Obama's End Run Around Congress

[Webster]

....how much longer is it before America can get some decent leadership in Washington?

(Patriot Post) A nuclear deal with Iran is just around the corner, and it won’t be good for U.S. national security. The biggest clue is that Barack Obama wants an end run around Congress, likely opting instead for UN approval. To reach such a significant arms-control deal without congressional approval would be unprecedented.

The Obama administration expressed phony outrage over the “traitorous” open letter 47 Senate Republicans wrote to Iran, but these senators were merely stating the obvious: A deal struck without Congress isn’t legally binding beyond the current administration. Even the administration admits the deal is “nonbinding.” The only problem with the letter was that it should have been addressed to Obama, who is plotting to avoid the Senate entirely. Instead, Obama may seek approval from the UN Security Council, which would almost certainly prompt Russia, China and Europe to end their sanctions against Iran. That would leave any residual U.S. sanctions essentially toothless.

As early as March 25, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) plans to push legislation asserting Congress' role in approving any nuclear agreement, as well as a voice on continuing or ending sanctions. March 24 is the administration’s rough deadline for outlining a deal, which it’s being careful not to call a “treaty” so as to better circumvent Congress. Corker’s bill wouldn’t press the “treaty” angle; it would just ensure Congress has a say.

Former Connecticut Senator Nebulous Lieberman advocated Corker’s approach in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, writing, “The essence of any deal would relieve the Iranians from such sanctions in exchange for certain restrictions on their nuclear activities. The sanctions under negotiation, however, are overwhelmingly the creation of Congress – put in law through bills passed by large bipartisan majorities. Given that Congress built the sanctions against Iran, it is unreasonable to bar it from any review or oversight in how that architecture is disassembled.”

Yet Obama has been directly pressuring Democrat senators against supporting Corker’s legislation, as well as promising a veto. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough wrote a letter to Congress last weekend warning that legislation would “likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations – emboldening Iranian hard-liners, inviting a counter-productive response from the Iranian majiles; differentiating the U.S. position from our allies in negotiations; and once again calling into question our ability to negotiate this deal.”

We absolutely call into question Obama’s ability to negotiate this flawed deal. It’s why Republicans wrote their letter. It’s why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his speech to Congress. And it’s why Netanyahu handily won re-election Tuesday.

Over the years, Obama repeatedly expressed how important it is to “prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” But his crack negotiation team, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, isn’t exactly moving toward that goal. Perhaps that’s why by the end of February Obama was talking about merely trying to “reduce the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon [emphasis added].”

On top of that softened rhetoric, Obama’s intelligence community’s 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment removes both Iran and its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, from the subsection on terrorism. Coincidence? Hardly. Yet this happened while Iran is gaining increasing hegemony in the region via its fight against ISIL – to the point that Saudi Arabia is considering its own nuclear arrangement as a counterbalance. So much for non-proliferation.

Obama wants Congress to wait at least until summer to weigh in. McDonough pleaded, “Let us complete the negotiations before the Congress acts on legislation. If we successfully negotiate a framework by the end of this month, and a final deal by the end of June, we expect a robust debate in Congress.” That is, unless Obama’s planned end run around Congress succeeds.

Thoughts?

 

[mrldii]

Well, if the contents of the article are even semi-true, it DOES circumvent Congress' "If Obama wants it, we don't!!!" stonewalling to ensure they continue to receive paychecks without actually ever doing any work, by placing the issue on a world-wide stage, rather than making it just the U.S.' problem to resolve.

 

[Webster]

Well, if the contents of the article are even semi-true, it DOES circumvent Congress' "If Obama wants it, we don't!!!" stonewalling to ensure they continue to receive paychecks without actually ever doing any work, by placing the issue on a world-wide stage, rather than making it just the U.S.' problem to resolve.

Well, you know, someone needs to remind Our Dear Leader that he is not an emperor, he is a president and that there are rules, one of which is that Congress still has the constitutional duty to approve international agreements, whether or not the Emperor-in-Chief likes it.

 

[DrLeftover]

Another source:

Obama's U.N. End Run Around Congress on Iran

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-laurenti/obamas-un-end-run-around_b_6869108.html

 

[mrldii]

Well, if the contents of the article are even semi-true, it DOES circumvent Congress' "If Obama wants it, we don't!!!" stonewalling to ensure they continue to receive paychecks without actually ever doing any work, by placing the issue on a world-wide stage, rather than making it just the U.S.' problem to resolve.

Well, you know, someone needs to remind Our Dear Leader that he is not an emperor, he is a president and that there are rules, one of which is that Congress still has the constitutional duty to approve international agreements, whether or not the Emperor-in-Chief likes it.

That's probably why the POTUS has decided to let this be a world-controlled issue and is directing it through the UN, rather than allowing Nothing to Continue to be Done, by keeping it an issue that will never be resolved with this Congress and that POTUS, just on sheer *principle*, alone.

During President Obama's first of his two terms, he promised he'd break the gridlock on Capitol Hill;  looks like he found a way to deliver on that promise.

Seems there could have been other, more-workable solutions, buttttttt...

 

[Webster]

Well, if the contents of the article are even semi-true, it DOES circumvent Congress' "If Obama wants it, we don't!!!" stonewalling to ensure they continue to receive paychecks without actually ever doing any work, by placing the issue on a world-wide stage, rather than making it just the U.S.' problem to resolve.

Well, you know, someone needs to remind Our Dear Leader that he is not an emperor, he is a president and that there are rules, one of which is that Congress still has the constitutional duty to approve international agreements, whether or not the Emperor-in-Chief likes it.

That's probably why the POTUS has decided to let this be a world-controlled issue and is directing it through the UN, rather than allowing Nothing to Continue to be Done, by keeping it an issue that will never be resolved with this Congress and that POTUS, just on sheer *principle*, alone.

During President Obama's first of his two terms, he promised he'd break the gridlock on Capitol Hill;  looks like he found a way to deliver on that promise.

Seems there could have been other, more-workable solutions, buttttttt...

...so let me get this straight: you'd rather let Obama do his end-run around Congress on an issue of international importance? Does this mean you trust the mullahs in Tehran to do the right thing....I mean, we're talking about a country that is a known state-sponsor of terror, a country that has contributed to the deaths of more Americans from terrorist acts than any other country, a country which supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, a country which denies that the Holocaust happened, a country which has vowed to wipe Israel off the map?

Yeah, there's a country we should work with...

 

[mrldii]

...so let me get this straight: you'd rather let Obama do his end-run around Congress on an issue of international importance? Does this mean you trust the mullahs in Tehran to do the right thing....I mean, we're talking about a country that is a known state-sponsor of terror, a country that has contributed to the deaths of more Americans from terrorist acts than any other country, a country which supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, a country which denies that the Holocaust happened, a country which has vowed to wipe Israel off the map?

Yeah, there's a country we should work with...

That's not what I said - or wrote - at all, nor did I even allude to it, as I was sticking to the subject at hand.

If you'd now like to take the topic over to that vein, then I will type (and no need to misinterpret and/or read-between-the-lines) that I prefer that on matters of great significance - domestically or internationally - that our POTUS and Congress be able to come up with singular, single-minded resolutions and plans on how situations will be handled. 

Since that has proven to be *impossible*, I am glad that someone is willing to find another way to get things done, rather than being stonewalled into inactivity and non-responsiveness simply because others don't want to play ball, because they don't like the color of the ball being used.


 

 

[Webster]

If you'd now like to take the topic over to that vein, then I will type (and no need to misinterpret and/or read-between-the-lines) that I prefer that on matters of great significance - domestically or internationally - that our POTUS and Congress be able to come up with singular, single-minded resolutions and plans on how situations will be handled. 

Since that has proven to be *impossible*, I am glad that someone is willing to find another way to get things done, rather than being stonewalled into inactivity and non-responsiveness simply because others don't want to play ball, because they don't like the color of the ball being used.

FWIW, I hope Congress sabotages whatever agreement Obama & Co. comes up with.....why? Because they can....

 

[mrldii]

FWIW, I hope Congress sabotages whatever agreement Obama & Co. comes up with.....why? Because they can....

Yes, I kinda gathered that.

In case I wasn't clear, I'm NOT a fan of Congress and the POTUS not working together, no matter what color the ties the gentlemen are wearing for the cameras, nor who's at the helm.



The Game simply further weakens us in the eyes of the world.

 

[Webster]

The Game simply further weakens us in the eyes of the world.

We're already weak there thanks to Obama & Company; no need to belabor the obvious...

 

[mrldii]

We're already weak there thanks to Obama & Company; no need to belabor the obvious...

I disagree.  People who claim to be concerned about our world-wide reputation AND try to lay it our current POTUS' feet should refrain from using terms like "Obama & Company", "Obummer", and the like.


IF they're truly concerned with how we look to the rest of the world.  Otherwise, they're simply - and gleefully - and *cleverly* - contributing to The Problem and are doing more damage than any one person ever could.

 

[Webster]

I disagree.  People who claim to be concerned about our world-wide reputation AND try to lay it our current POTUS' feet should refrain from using terms like "Obama & Company", "Obummer", and the like.

Hey, Obama & Company's already ruined America's reputation over the past 6 years; why worry about what Americans call our Dear Leader?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Obama can go to the useless U.N. all it wants and can come up with whatever agreement it wants. It still will not be binding for America to follow it after the dear leader is gone. Our Constitution trumps anything and everything from the U.N. So the next president can say I think allowing Iran the world leader in terrorist activities and vowing to destroy western civilization might not be a good idea for them to have nukes.

 

[DrLeftover]

I'll go over there and stand in the corner labeled:

Get the UN out of the US, and the US out of the UN.​