Obama: My Way — Or You're A Traitor

Even for President Obama, it was an outrageous statement, and he needs to apologize to the nation for it.

On Wednesday, at American University, Obama said the genocidal fascist freaks in Iran who chant “death to America” are “making common cause with the Republican caucus” for opposing the deal.

It was a gratuitous, unsupportable, vile insult. Remember six months ago, when the entire press corps had a convulsion because an ex-mayor of New York who hasn’t held public office in 14 years said, “I do not believe the president loves America”? The media demanded Rudy Giuliani apologize. They couldn’t talk about anything else for days.

Now the sitting president of the United States says the entire Republican caucus not only doesn’t love America but doesn’t like America, even hates America. But not only that — craves death for America. By logical extension, anyone who agrees with the Republican caucus on the Iran deal also must be in “common cause” with the “death to America” savages.

Guess that now includes Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who came out against the deal Thursday.

Oh, and it also includes two-thirds of Americans who have expressed an opinion on the matter. (A poll this week said that by a margin of 57% to 28%, Americans oppose the Iran deal).

Even Obama supporters have to concede that he is the most divisive president in US history.

Obama has been a my-way-or-the-highway guy since Day 1. (Or at least Day 3 of his presidency, when a group of senators challenged Obama on the details of a proposed economic stimulus plan and he replied, “I won.”)

This would-be master of rhetoric can’t avoid the most obvious traps, such as the fallacy of the false dilemma and its neighbor, the straw-man fallacy.

Last week he actually said it’s his Iran deal or war. Nothing in between.

He does this all the time, suggests that there is no reasonable option other than what he proposes. It illustrates the extreme, nearly hysterical way he perceives all opposition: Everyone else is obsessed with this thing called “politics.” He is the only one who is even trying to do what’s right for the country.

His immigration policy, he noted last fall, was the following: “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.” Do it my way, or I’ll simply impose my will, unilaterally and using tactics I previously conceded would be illegal.

In speeches, Obama often charges that others believe there are only two extreme choices and he represents the sensible middle. But he himself reached the apotheosis of this kind of thinking in his second inaugural address when he actually said that since no one person can do everything that needs to be done, the government has to step in. (“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future,” he said in that speech, as if anyone is arguing that, “or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together” — his euphemism for more government.)

This week, projecting his own extremism on his ideological opponents, he told a group of columnists, “If I presented a cure for cancer, getting legislation passed to move that forward would be a nail-biter.”

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

I was wrong about Schumer, and it feels so good

Never has being wrong felt so good, nor has a mistake been so worth celebrating.

Chuck Schumer surprised me in all the best ways. His opposition to the terrible Iran nuke deal is breathtakingly bold and opens the door to actually defeating it. That would be one of the best things to happen to America, Israel and the civilized world in a very long time.

Let us count the ways Schumer’s decision matters.

First, because he is the next Senate Democratic leader, I expected him to follow a president from his party and the majority of his caucus. He may pay a price for breaking out of the political box, but he gives cover to other Dems to do the same.

Second, his timing. Schumer ­announced his decision only a day after Obama made an impassioned, partisan appeal. Any momentum Obama had was stopped by Schumer, who effectively rebuked the president’s shameless attempt to link Republicans to Iranian hardliners. That rancid argument is now dead.

Third, the substance. Schumer issued a detailed statement demolishing supporters’ basic argument — that the deal, while imperfect, was better than no deal. Schumer persuasively showed the deal served Iran more than our side.

He broke his decision into three parts — the nuclear issues during the first 10 years of the deal, the nuclear issues in the following decade and the “non-nuclear” aspects, meaning Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism. For each, he asked whether we would be better off with or without the negotiated terms.

His conclusions were striking. We might be better off with the deal in the first decade, he argues, but almost certainly we would be better off without it in the other two parts.

He found numerous weaknesses in the text, including over inspections and sanctions. After the first decade, he wrote that Iran “can be very close to achieving” a nuke, and that the quest “will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States.”

He was just getting warmed up. The turning point, he said, was the non-nuclear issues, meaning Iran’s lethal ability to use unfrozen accounts of $50 billion to fund its terrorist programs. That added up to “a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”

His conclusions, which include doubts that Iran will move away from its apocalyptic theocracy, should resolve suspicions that Schumer might still side with an Obama veto. Absent a miraculous change in Iranian behavior, the senator has made the strongest possible case against the deal, so I don’t think he’ll flip-flop.

A fourth and final significance of Schumer’s position is that it makes New York the clear leader of the opposition movement. Five brave Democratic House members from the state — Eliot Engel, Steve Israel, Grace Meng, Nita Lowey and Kathleen Rice — also said no to Obama. The entire GOP delegation will do the same.

That should not be the end of it. National security is a local issue, as 9/11 painfully proved.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has joined the “no” chorus, and his successor, Michael Bloomberg, should, too. Former top cop Ray Kelly should sign on, as should business and civic leaders who understand the stakes.

Most important, Gov. Cuomo should lead them. Often willing to buck his party’s left-wing orthodoxy, including on school choice, the Iran deal should be the next example.

With the Empire State remaining the perennial first choice among jihadists, New York’s governor has an absolute duty to do everything he can to protect its residents, businesses and visitors from attack.

Schumer’s conclusion alone that Iran would use the end of sanctions to expand its export of terrorism is reason enough for the governor to join the opposition.

He would seem to be halfway there. Cuomo traveled to Israel to show solidarity with the Jewish state during last year’s Gaza war. When he returned, he said, “Any New Yorker who doesn’t understand that Israel’s fight is our fight is living not in the state of New York but in the state of denial.”

Now he can prove he meant what he said.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA PERSONALLY LEAKED WORD OF CHUCK SCHUMER’S OPPOSITION TO IRAN DEAL

GOTTA LOVE IT WHEN THEY EAT THERE OWN!!!!

President Obama personally leaked news that Senator Chuck Schumer had decided to oppose his Iran deal, even after Schumer personally asked the President not to mention it until he could make an announcement Friday.

During last night’s widely-viewed GOP debate, word began to circulate that Sen. Schumer had decided to oppose President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. The leak appeared timed to make sure the high-level Democratic defection–Schumer is the 3rd highest ranking Democrat in Congress–got as little attention as possible.

A story at Politico confirms the leak was in fact timed for minimum impact, but not by Schumer himself. According to an unnamed source familiar with Schumer’s decision, the Senator called President Obama Thursday afternoon to say he had decided to oppose the deal. Schumer asked the President not to mention his decision publicly until he could make a formal announcement on Friday. Politico’s source was careful to emphasize that Schumer told no one else about his decision, meaning only President Obama himself could have made the decision to leak the story to the press.

After word leaked out, Sen. Schumer issued a lengthy statement about his opposition to the deal on his website. The statement breaks his opposition into three parts. He writes that he finds the arguments for the deal over the first 10-years “plausible” but says the inspections regime has “serious weaknesses” and that the snap back of sanctions process is “cumbersome.” In addition, Schumer believes that after 10-years Iran will have a nuclear program approved by the United States. Finally, Schumer considers the non-nuclear parts of the deal and concludes, “When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”

Congress is expected to vote against the deal when they return from the August recess. However, that decision can be vetoed by the President. Congress needs a 2/3 vote to override that expected veto. That means the President needs just 34 Senators to take his side. So far he has at least twelve.

But as a high ranking Democrat in line to become the next Senate leader of his party, Schumer’s defection has the potential to weaken the resolve of other Democrats. 

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

11%

 announced his opposition to the deal last night, shortly after word of Schumer’s decision broke. For this reason, the White House had urged Schumer to avoid announcing his decision until the very end of the process, or at least after enough Senators had declared themselves to make it a non-issue.

The spin coming out of the White House now is that Schumer’s defection is a clear signal that a win for their side is inevitable. The thinking goes that an insider like Schumer wouldn’t really put Obama’s foreign policy legacy at risk, therefore his planned Friday announcement must be a signal that the votes are there to prevent a veto override vote without him. As Politico frames it, “Bad news is being taken as almost good news at the White House.”

Contradicting this claim is the fact that the White House seemed to be expressing some anger at Schumer earlier in the day. White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested Friday that Schumer’s defection could become an obstacle to his becoming Democratic leader after 

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

2%

 leaves the Senate. Other White House surrogates made similar noises.

One thing is certain. If President Obama determined it was important enough to pull the rug out from Schumer and try (unsuccessfully) to bury the news of his defection under the GOP debate, he can’t be completely confident of the outcome.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Obama’s Lies about Bush and Iraq

The president’s speech on the Iranian deal, delivered at American University on Wednesday, was vintage Obama, as in a compendium of demagoguery, historical revisionism and outright lying. Nothing emphasized that more forcefully than the portion of the Obama’s speech addressing the war in Iraq. Obama insisted U.S. involvement there was the result of “a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.”

That is litany of falsehoods. First, it was a complete lack of military action against a rapidly metastasizing Islamist terror threat, studiously ignored during the Clinton years, that gave Osama bin Laden the ability to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks from the terrorist sanctuary provided to al Qaeda by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That would be the same Bill Clinton, along with numerous other Democrats, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who provided ample incentive for the invasion of Iraq, characterizing Saddam Hussein and his burgeoning WMD program as a mortal threat to world peace and stability. Moreover, as David Horowitz and Ben Johnson explain in their book“Party of Defeat,” every Democrat who voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq—including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer—had access to the same National Intelligence Estimate that Bush and Republicans did.

It was a report, despite years of Democratic lying, that ultimately turned out to be correct. Twoseparate reports revealed the existence of large stocks of chemical weapons contained in the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex that was overrun by ISIS last year. And in 2008, after Democrats had campaigned for years on the slogan, “Bush Lied, people died,” the New York Times reported that “hundreds of tons of natural uranium” had been removed from Iraq’s main nuclear site and moved to Canada.

As Horowitz and Johnson explain, none of it mattered to a Democratic Party intent on undermining Bush and the war, an effort driven by pure partisan politics arising from the reality that anti-war Democrat Howard Dean vaulted to the top of the pack of Democratic presidential contenders in the 2004 campaign. Without missing a beat, presidential candidates John Edwards and John Kerry suddenly decided they were against the same war they had previously supported, and their Democrat colleagues embraced that defeatist change of heart with all the gusto they could muster. No one more so than Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. Even before the surge that turned the tide of the Iraq war decisively in America’s favor was completed, Reid declared the war to be “lost.” Less than six months later, Clinton, with an eye towards her own 2008 presidential ambitions, attacked the integrity of Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, insisting reports on that success “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

]VIDEO] CHUCK SCHUMER TO DEFY OBAMA, OPPOSE IRAN DEAL

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is expected to announce tomorrow that he opposes the nuclear accord President Obama negotiated with the Ayatollah’s regime in Iran. Schumer, as the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, wields heavy influence over his caucus, whose representatives have been split over the deal thus far.

The New York Democratic Senator was often brought up in a recent New York City rally where over 12,000 people came to protest the Iran deal.

Schumer said in a statement regarding the Iran deal:

Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.

“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way. While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion,” he added.

The New York Times reports that Schumer retreated to his Brooklyn apartment on the Sunday that the deal was announced and had continuously studied the accord until making his decision this week. He ultimately determined that the deal was not one he could support.

Opponents of the Iran deal have said that the agreement allows for Iran to secure $150 billion dollars in unfrozen assets, which it could use to empower the terrorist regimes it supports as the world’s leading state-sponsor of jihadist terror groups. The deal also gives Iran at least 24-days notice before international inspectors are allowed to investigate whether the regime is cheating the deal, and if the Mullahs have decided to make a push towards developing nuclear weapons.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Krauthammer on Obama's Divisive Iran Rhetoric: 'Vintage Obama, New Low'

Krauthammer slammed Obama for his divisive rhetoric on Iran Wednesday on "The Kelly File."

"It's vintage Obama - the demonization of his opponents - lumping them together with people chanting 'death to America,' I must say is a new low for the president," Krauthammer said.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?

From Obama’s pitch for his Iran deal today: Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those . . . 

(APPLAUSE) In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

Directly accusing your opponents of allying with wannabe-genocidal, anti-Semitic, authoritarian nutjobs. Very presidential, that’s the way to win ’em over.

Obama and Iran’s “Hardliners”

I’d like to add a few observations to Patrick’s astute post on President Obama’s insulting and troublingly detached-from-reality speech today on his indefensible Iran deal.

 In Iran, what Obama referred to as “hardliners” chanting “Death to America” are the regime. First and foremost among them is “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Obama’s claim that Iranian “hardliners” really oppose the deal – which which of course implies that he is only dealing with regime “moderates” (what else?) with whom we can safely play ball, is a fairy tale. To be sure, Obama’s media friends are helping him broadcast this fairy tale; that, no doubt, is why the president is able to run to the nearest college campus and get applause for his kooky claims. But the reality is that Khamenei – the guy Obama implored to cooperate with him – is the chief hardliner. The Iran deal could not have happened unless Khamenei supported it; he supports it precisely because it is breathtakingly good for Iran. 

The supreme leader is chief of the “Death to America” cheering squad. Not only did Khamenei actively join regime subordinates in chanting “Death to America” while the negotiations with Obama and Kerry were ongoing. (See also Mona’s column on this subject.) Even four days after the deal was announced, knowing that Congress was still to review it, Khamenei could not help himself but praise Iranians for chanting “Death to Israel, Death to the U.S.” during the negotiations. 

At the same time, Iran’s very “moderate” foreign minister Javad Zarif, who not only supports the deal but negotiated it, assured Iranians that the regime would “continue the arms supply policy” under which it supports Hezbollah and other anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli jihadists. The only difference is that, now, thanks to Obama’s deal, they will have an additional $100 billion-plus with which to materially support terrorism.

 So the fact of the matter is that the people on Capitol Hill who oppose the deal are the people on the side of authentic Iranian moderates. It is Obama who is lending aid and comfort to America’s avowed, unapologetic enemies – enemies who could not be more brazen in trumpeting their hostility, and who steer a regime that has killed thousands of Americans. 

The people who oppose this deal are the ones who effectively oppose Iran’s hardliners (rather than pretending to oppose while aiding and abetting them). The people who oppose this deal recognize that it will strengthen the hand of the tyrannical jihadist regime, enabling it to solidify its hold on power and continue persecuting the Iranian people who despise the regime. 

On that score, it is worth recalling that in 2009, when Iranian democracy activists rose up in protest and appeared poised to attempt overthrowing the hardliner regime, it was Obama – not Americans who oppose Obama’s Iran deal – who turned a deaf ear to them, even as the regime shot them dead in the streets. The president had his choice between cajoling Iranian hardliners and championing Iranians who yearn for a better relationship with the West … and he made it.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama invokes Iraq war debate in push for Iran deal, amid Dem defections

President Obama vigorously defended Wednesday his nuclear agreement with Iran as one "the world unanimously supports," reaching back to blame America's invasion of Iraq -- and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- for emboldening Iran, while labeling Republican opposition as "knee-jerk partisanship," and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's criticism as "wrong." 

Speaking at American University in Washington, Obama described the congressional debate over the Iran deal as the "most consequential" since the Iraq invasion. The president called the agreement a "very good deal" that -- despite critics' claims to the contrary -- forbids Iran from building a nuclear weapon. 

In anticipation of a barrage of advertising against the deal, Obama likened those arguments to the case for war in Iraq more than a decade ago. 

"Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal," Obama said. 

The stark comparison dovetails with the president's central claim that the alternative to an Iran deal may be war -- "maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," he said Wednesday. And his appeal to lawmakers comes as he tries to stem defections from his own party. 

He spoke after Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, of New York, told Newsday he will oppose the Iran plan. Spokeswoman Caitlin Girouard confirmed his opposition to Fox News. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Iran Publishes Book On How To Outwit U.S. And Destroy Israel

While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.

Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.

He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”

Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”

One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.

Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.

These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of The Philippines and Thailand.

However, according to Khamenei, Israel, which he labels as “adou” and “doshman,” meaning “enemy” and “foe,” is a special case for three reasons.

The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”

The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”

Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”

He intimates that one of his “most cherished wishes” is to one day pray in Jerusalem.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

Iran Says It Will Ban Americans From Nuclear Inspections

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran will not allow American or Canadian inspectors working for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear facilities, an official said in remarks broadcast by state TV on Thursday.

Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran will only allow inspectors from countries that have diplomatic relations with it. The previously undisclosed remarks were made during a Sunday meeting with parliamentarians.

"American and Canadian inspectors cannot be sent to Iran," said Araghchi. "It is mentioned in the deal that inspectors should be from countries that have diplomatic relations with Islamic republic of Iran."

He also said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency will not have access to "sensitive and military documents."

Iran and world powers reached a historical deal earlier this month aimed at curbing Tehran's disputed nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Western nations have long suspected Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons alongside its civilian atomic program, allegations denied by Tehran, which insists its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful.

The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Canada closed its embassy in Tehran and suspended diplomatic relations in 2012.

Via: Yahoo News

Continue Reading....

Blind, stubborn ideology, gross incompetence caused capitulation to Iranian totalitarian theocracy

It looks as if the president and his secretary of state are on a mission to praise, protect and defend their enemies, to despise and punish their allies, and to diminish America

Almost two years of “negotiations,“the final “deal"appears as a total surrender of the Obama government to all the demands of the Ayatollahs who boasted that all their red lines have been met. The deal will put them on the path to become a nuclear power, not as a pariah but legitimized by the US and Europe;they will continue to enrich uranium and to develop their ICBM program; the lifting of the sanctions will give them 150 billion dollars to improve their economy and their military capabilities which include, of course, strengthening Hizbollah, Hamas, and other purveyors of terror in the troubled Middle-East.

The bazaar merchants have trounced the feeble and naïve negotiators led by the team Obama-Kerry. You would think they have defeated America militarily and are now dictating their terms, as the allies in Versailles with Germany or McArthur in Japan. Years ago, Obama asked the Iranian mullahs to “unclench their fists ” and normalize relations with America. They didn’t but he did; he opened his hands, he raised his hands and said “Don’t shoot ! We give you what you want.”

The flaws in the preliminaries:

Some observers think that the original sin was not to limit the negotiators to US vs Iran but to include what is called P5+1 with Russia and China a sort of fifth column siding with Iran.

This was, indeed, a flaw, but a deliberate one, not a mistake.I think the Obama team knew in advance that they wanted a deal at any price, and intentionally enlarged the forum so that they could use the “other partners” as excuses for the multiple concessions they knew they had to make . How many times we heard Kerry say, apologetically, that “we are not alone;we had no choice if we wanted to keep our partners…”

Another flaw was pointed out by James Jeffrey , former ambassador to Iraq, who said after the “Interim agreement:” Those who studied the art of negotiating found two big mistakes that should be avoided :never show that you are desperate to obtain a deal and never take off the table a credible threat of use of military force if the talks collapse.” The shrewd Iranians knew that Obama was desperate for a deal and swore off the use of force, and they ratched up their demands.

Rather than set a time limit, the negotiations continued on and off indefinitely. The give-and-take which is the essence of any negotiation, was a one-way activity: we gave and they took, slowly but surely, extension after extension, concession after concession, red line after red line crossed. That is a huge flaw, for what is in discussion here? Obama started with bombastic declarations, often repeated, that “we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon…I don’t mean to only contain ...” It was a very simple proposition:  First Iran should dismantle her nuclear paraphernalia, (as did Qaddafi of Libya after America attacked Iraq), and then discuss the modalities and the compensations. But Iran never said it would dismantle the nuclear facilities, above and underground—known and secret—in Natanz, Fordow, Parchin and other places. So they negotiated the “time line,” when and how it will be permitted to acquire the bomb.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

Pelosi: Obama's agreement with Iran is a 'diplomatic masterpiece' (HAS SHE READ IT YET?)

House Democrats will provide the necessary support to finalize President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted Thursday.

 

Asked if the Democrats could sustain a promised veto of the Republicans' expected disapproval measure, Pelosi didn't hesitate.

 

"Yes," she replied. 

 

Pressed about the reason she's so confident, she said: "Because of the nature of the agreement."

 

GOP leaders in both chambers, who have hammered the agreement as essentially an endorsement of Iran's nuclear weapons program, are expected to vote in September on legislation disapproving it — resolutions Obama has vowed to veto.

 

That scenario sets the stage for Republican attempts to override the veto — votes that would require Democratic support to reach the two-thirds majority needed for passage.

 

A number of liberal Democrats, such as Pelosi, have come out in strong support of the agreement, saying it presents the best opportunity for the U.S. and its allies to prevent Iran from building nuclear arms. 

 

"There is simply no acceptable alternative to this deal," Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) wrote this week in an op-ed in The Hill. 

 

A handful of others have already announced their opposition, warning that the deal simply doesn't go far enough to ensure that Iran doesn't build weapons or use the influx of cash from sanctions relief to fund terrorism abroad.

 

"[T]he deal before us now is simply too dangerous for the American people," Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday in a statement. "I have every confidence a better deal can be realized."

 

Most House Democrats have not played their hand, saying they want to use the 60-day window to talk to experts and constituents about the agreement. 

 

Pelosi on Thursday hailed Obama for keeping the global negotiators at the table, characterizing the deal as "a diplomatic masterpiece." She said House Democrats are lining up behind the deal in numbers sufficient to uphold a veto of the expected Republican effort to sink the deal.

 

"So where does my confidence spring from? First of all, from the quality of the agreement. Second of all, to the seriousness and thoughtfulness with which my colleagues have approached this," Pelosi said. 

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

[OPINION] Congress should reject Iran pact

WASHINGTON — It came two days after the announcement of the nuclear agreement with Iran, yet little mention was made on July 16 of the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear explosion, near Alamogordo, N.M. The anniversary underscored that the agreement attempts to thwart proliferation of technology seven decades old.

Nuclear-weapons technology has become markedly more sophisticated since 1945. But not so sophisticated that nations with sufficient money and determination cannot master or acquire it. Iran’s determination is probably related to America’s demonstration, in Iraq and Libya, of the perils of not having nuclear weapons.

Critics who think more severe sanctions are achievable and would break Iran’s determination must answer this: When have sanctions caused a large nation to surrender what it considers a vital national security interest? Critics have, however, amply demonstrated two things:

First, the agreement comprehensively abandons President Obama’s original goal of dismantling the infrastructure of its nuclear weapons program. Second, as the administration became more yielding with Iran, it became more dishonest with Americans. For example, John Kerry says we never sought “anywhere, anytime” inspections. But on April 6, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said the agreement would include “anywhere, anytime” inspections. Kerry’s co-negotiator, Wendy Sherman, breezily dismissed “anywhere, anytime” as “something that became popular rhetoric.” It “became”? This is disgraceful.

Verification depends on U.S. intelligence capabilities, which failed in 2003 (Iraq’s supposed possession of WMD), in 1968 (North Vietnam’s Tet offensive) and in 1941 (Pearl Harbor). As Reuel Marc Gerecht says in “How Will We Know? The coming Iran intelligence failure” (The Weekly Standard, July 27), “The CIA has a nearly flawless record of failing to predict foreign countries’ going nuclear (Great Britain and France don’t count).”

During the 1960 campaign, John Kennedy cited “indications” that by 1964 there would be “10, 15 or 20” nuclear powers. As president, he said that by 1975 there might be 15 or 20. Nonproliferation efforts have succeeded but cannot completely succeed forever.

It is a law of arms control: Agreements are impossible until they are unimportant. The U.S.-Soviet strategic arms control “process” was an arena of maneuvering for military advantage, until the Soviet Union died of anemia. Might the agreement with Iran buy sufficient time for Iran to undergo regime modification? Although Kerry speaks of the agreement “guaranteeing” that Iran will not become a nuclear power, it will. But what will Iran be like 15 years hence?

Since 1972, U.S. policy toward China has been a worthy but disappointing two-part wager. One part is that involving China in world trade will temper its unruly international ambitions. The second is that economic growth, generated by the moral and institutional infrastructure of markets, will weaken the sinews of authoritarianism.

The Obama administration’s comparable wager is that the Iranian regime will be subverted by domestic restiveness. The median age in Iran is 29.5 (in the United States, 37.7; in the European Union, 42.2). More than 60 percent of Iran’s university students, and approximately 70 percent of medical students, are women. Ferment is real. 

In 1951, Hannah Arendt, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, argued bleakly (in “The Origins of Totalitarianism”) that tyrannies wielding modern instruments of social control (bureaucracies, mass communications) could achieve permanence by conscripting the citizenry’s consciousness, thereby suffocating social change. The 1956 Hungarian Revolution changed her mind: No government can control human nature or “all channels of communication.”  

Today’s technologies make nations, including Iran, porous to outside influences; intellectual autarky is impossible. The best that can be said for the Iran agreement is that by somewhat protracting Iran’s path to a weapon it buys time for constructive churning in Iran. Although this is a thin reed on which to lean hopes, the reed is as real as Iran’s nuclear ambitions are apparently nonnegotiable. 

The best reason for rejecting the agreement is to rebuke Obama’s long record of aggressive disdain for Congress — recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, rewriting and circumventing statutes, etc. Obama’s intellectual pedigree runs to Woodrow Wilson, the first presidential disparager of the separation of powers. Like Wilson, Obama ignores the constitutional etiquette of respecting even rivalrous institutions.

The Iran agreement should be a treaty; it should not have been submitted first to the U.N. as a studied insult to Congress. Wilson said that rejecting the Versailles Treaty would “break the heart of the world.” The Senate, no member of which had been invited to accompany Wilson to the Paris Peace Conference, proceeded to break his heart. Obama deserves a lesson in the cost of Wilsonian arrogance. Knowing little history, Obama makes bad history.

— George Will is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Via: LJ World

Continue Reading......