Obama’s Telling Shift on the Legislative Role in Diplomacy
@libertylynx points out a very interesting contrast. The awful developments in Iraq over the last several years, most notably the rampage of Isis and the dramatic expansion of Iranian influence in the country, are directly attributable to Obama’s decision to withdraw all US military forces. He did so after failing to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement with the Maliki government. This occurred primarily because of a particular demand that Obama made of Maliki: namely, that the Iraqi premier get his parliament’s approval of any agreement. Obama stated that such approval was necessary to make the deal credible and viable. He said legislative buy in was essential. Of course, this did not happen, and almost certainly Obama knew it would not happen. This gave him the pretext to bug out.
Fast forward 3-4 years. Whereas Obama had insisted on Iraqi legislative approval of a deal with the US, now Obama is dead set against letting the American legislative branch have any say whatsoever in a deal with Iran. So much for the need for legislative approval to give a deal credibility.
Obama obviously has no principled view of the role of the legislature in foreign policy. He didn’t want a Status of Forces agreement, so he insisted on Iraqi legislative approval because he knew it would not be forthcoming. He desperately wants a deal with Iran, so he adamantly opposes American legislative approval because he knows it is not likely to happen. His views on legislative involvement in diplomacy are not principled, but merely instrumental and change with the circumstances.
Indeed, not only is Obama not shutting out Congress, he is actively demonizing it in the most demagogic fashion for having the temerity to insist on having a voice. When he said that Senate Republicans were making common cause with “hardliners” in Iran, he was basically dog whistling, and his attack dogs responded with alacrity, accusing the Republicans-including the leader of the effort, Tom Cotton, a Marine combat veteran-of treason. The new cry, advanced by another of the administration’s transparent social media manipulation campaigns is #GOPWantsWar.
A typical Obama false choice. His claim is that the only alternative to the specific deal he is “negotiating” is war. Think about that for a moment. It presumes that (a) absent any deal, Iran will proceed hell bent for a nuclear weapon, and (b) a nuclear Iran is such a dangerous regime that it must be prevented from acquiring the bomb, by war if necessary.
But apparently such a regime is a suitable negotiating partner, will adhere to any deal, and will eschew its nuclear ambitions even though a deal will effectively take both economic and military coercive measures off the table. Moreover, Iran clearly has hegemonic ambitions in the region, and a deal will give them greater resources to achieve them.
It is therefore by no means clear that a deal will reduce the likelihood of war. In my view, it is likely that the reverse is true. Moreover, those opposing a deal-who include many Democrats, as well as most Republicans-are advocating measures other than war, notably an increase in economic pressure, to force the Iranian government to forego its nuclear ambitions, and to limit its ability to achieve that capability. #GOPWantsWar is therefore a slur of the most scurrilous sort.
It gets worse, actually. Obama, claiming to be embarrassed for the Republicans, lies shamelessly about what the letter the 47 Republicans wrote. The Republicans never suggested that Obama was untrustworthy.
Further, catch this: “For them to address a letter to the Ayatollah who, they claim, is our mortal enemy . . . .” That is, Obama asserts that it is merely a Republican claim that Iran is an enemy of the US. The implication is clearly that Obama believes that it is not. That explains a lot.
I don’t believe Obama wants war, though I do believe that a soft deal with Iran like the one that is apparently imminent makes it more likely. I don’t believe in the slightest that he wanted Isis to run amok in Iraq, but his misjudgments and Machiavellian maneuvers made this outcome possible.
It is necessary to turn away from questioning motives, and to focus on substance. And I will close by noting that those who are most aggressive in questioning the motives of their opponents are the ones who believe they cannot prevail on the merits.
The whole “Hardliner vs. Moderate” narrative is highly suspect to begin with.
Comment by JDonn — March 13, 2015 @ 11:54 pm
@JDonn. More than highly suspect. Total BS. We’ve fallen for that over and over and over again. It’s a wish, not a fact.
Tom Cotton: The Most Powerful Man in Washington
Erick Erickson
3/13/2015 12:01:00 AM – Erick Erickson
Tom Cotton (R-AR) is the junior senator from Arkansas. In fact, Cotton has only been in the Senate for two months. He spent one term in the House of Representatives before making the leap to the upper house. Prior to his stint in elected politics, Cotton was a soldier in the Iraq War. He is now the most powerful man in Washington.
Cotton rounded up 46 other Republican senators in Washington to sign a letter to Iran. That letter announced that no deal between President Obama and Iran would ever make it through the United States Senate. The constitution requires a two-thirds vote for any treaty to be ratified. An Iranian deal would not get a majority vote, let alone a two-thirds vote.
The outrage from Democrats was immediate. On twitter, the hashtag “47traitors” exploded. More than 100,000 people signed a petition demanding the 47 senators be arrested for treason. Chris Matthews, the Walter Winchel of MSNBC, yelled at his viewers accusing the senators of violating the Logan Act. The sound bite got picked up and parroted by talking heads who needed a point and had none of their own.
The Logan Act is a law enacted in 1799 by President John Adams. It prohibits citizens from engaging foreign powers in contravention of the United States. Not a single person has ever been convicted of violating the Logan Act. Only one person, in 1803, was ever indicted under the Logan Act. The government is exempt from the law, obviously, and the State Department determined in 1975 that Congress, as a branch of government, was exempt from the Logan Act.
The rhetoric of the left has been farcical. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy directly collaborated with the Soviet Union to undermine President Reagan’s foreign policy. We only learned about that as a nation when the Soviet Union collapsed and old KGB archives were uncovered.
In 2002, Congressmen John Bonior and Jim McDermott flew to Iraq to stand shoulder to shoulder with Saddam Hussein against George W. Bush. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to stand with Bashar al-Assad against George W. Bush. But the most similar action to Tom Cotton’s letter happened in 1984.
That year, then-Democratic Leader Jim Wright, who would go on to be Speaker of the House, penned a letter to communist leader Daniel Ortega. The letter, signed by multiple Democrats in the Congress, pledged Democratic opposition to Ronald Reagan’s policies and sought to engage in separate diplomatic relations with Ortega than what the Reagan administration was attempting.
For Hillary Clinton to claim last week that Tom Cotton’s letter was something unique in American history was as big a lie as her claiming she could not put two email accounts on one device. In fact, the Democrats know Tom Cotton’s actions are legal. They just do not like his boldness in defiance of a president who increasingly views himself as a dictator.
Try as they might, the Democrats have not been able to completely undermine the idea of three separate but equal branches of government. Their spittle flew when Speaker Boehner invited the Israeli prime minister to speak to Congress. Though they claimed the invitation was some sort of breach of protocol, the Speaker also invited the Pope to speak, and the Democrats made no such claims.
What is really happening is the Democrats were attempting to allow Iran to build up a nuclear program without anyone noticing. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton shed light on the Democrats’ plan. The Democrats were left scurrying about like roaches with the light turned on. They do not like it.
The net result of Sen. Cotton’s actions has not been an indictment of 47 Republican senators. Instead, Secretary of State John Kerry had to admit President Obama’s negotiations with Iran were non-binding and unenforcible. But for Sen. Tom Cotton, America would never have gotten that admission. It makes the senator one of the few people in Washington who has been able to throw Barack Obama off his game.
Comment by Peter M Todebush — March 14, 2015 @ 1:09 pm
I want to put forth some crazy speculation.
Rasha supplies Iran with nukular materials. Rasha also has its fat fingers in Syria. Iran is all over the place, and now even in Iraq.
What if this business of negotiating with Iran is really some sort of spy game, as well as a game to undermine the Rasha?
Face the crazies across the table, so to speak, and see what they’re made of, what makes them tick, and how we can use Iran to try to defuse the Rasha, Syria and a bunch of other things.
After all, Obummer is so incredibly brilliant, and Democrats and their supporters always proclaim themselves to be the smartest people in the word.
Comment by elmer — March 15, 2015 @ 7:50 am
Any deal with Iran is unverifiable and unenforceable. However, Scary Kerry could merely require
a performance guaranty from the Iranians–let’s say, in the form of a irrevocable letter of credit for a nominal sum–maybe $200+ billion–issued by some entity like the IMF or the equivalent. Of
course, the L/C would have to be secured by Iran’s foreign reserves. The events of default would
be spelled out in Scary’s agreement with the Persians with declaration of default at the sole option of the beneficiaries. Remedies would include the money as well as renewed sanctions (real
ones this time)and a few more draconian ones–like cutting off the Ayatollah’s beard–and so on.
While we’re at it, let’s get Kerry’s and Obama’s personal (secured) guaranties that this deal will
prevent a nukey Iran–I’d suggest $100 million each from these two clowns. Let them put some big
money where their big mouths are. No guaranties, no deal, just like “we” used to do in the “real
world” in the old days.
Comment by eric — March 15, 2015 @ 8:39 pm