Powered by WebAds

Monday, August 03, 2015

Two thirds of Americans oppose Iranian nuclear sellout

A new Quinnipiac poll shows that two thirds of the American people oppose the Obama-Kerry sellout to a nuclear Iran.
“American voters oppose 57 – 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran,” the release from Quinnipiac states. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose the deal by an 86% to 3% margin, and only a slim majority of Democrats support it. The poll of 1,644 registered voters has a margin of error of 2.4%.
Opposition to the Iran deal has widened as Congress has probed the details of the agreement in televised hearings on Capitol Hill. One major issue is the existence of secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran governing nuclear inspections, which the administration has not read or provided to Congress, in violation of the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act (the Corker bill).
Congress is starting to get it.
At least 218 Republican lawmakers have signed on to support a resolution expressing “firm disapproval” of the nuclear deal, which would provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief while enabling it to continue work on ballistic missiles and other nuclear research.
The measure, which is being led by Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) and was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, comes as Congress takes 60 days to review the deal before voting on it.
Many lawmakers, including a growing number of Democrats, have come out against the deal, citing concerns it does not do enough to limit Iran’s nuclear program.
Critics remain most concerned about portions of the deal that will ban U.S. inspectors from Iran’s nuclear sites and remove restrictions on the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program.
At least three members of the House leadership, as well as 18 of 22 House committee chairmen and 23 of the 25 GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have already signed on to back the resolution, according to figures provided by congressional sources.
House Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Republican Study Committee Chair Bill Flores (R., Texas) also back the measure.
I'm not so impressed by this. Aren't the Republicans the majority party in Congress? Don't they chair all the committees? Who are the four chairmen who have not come out against the deal? Who are the two GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who have not come out against the deal? These people need to be named and shamed.
A senior congressional aide familiar with the effort said the administration is failing to convince lawmakers to back the deal.
“It appears the administration’s sales pitch for this deal is falling on deaf ears. Closed-door briefings and public hearings have apparently left Members with more questions than answers, and the administration’s decision to circumvent Congress by first bringing the deal to the UN infuriated key Democrats who are otherwise loyal to the president,” the source said.
“This level of opposition so early in the review period indicates that Congress really has a chance of killing the agreement. What Congressman Roskam has done—securing 218 commitments from Members vote against the deal in just two weeks—is a rather remarkable feat. He still has more work to do, but this is an impressive start,” the source added.
Remarkable? Look, I love Roskam - he's one of Israel's strongest supporters. But he shouldn't have to work this hard to defeat a deal that is so obviously and blatantly a disaster.

I also don't get why Congress has not claimed the Senate's power to advise and consent to treaties - if not by classifying this agreement as a treaty (which is what it really is) then at least by classifying it as an amendment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would require a two thirds affirmative vote in the Senate which will never happen.

Labels: , , , , , ,


At 6:39 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

So, even with low info Americans, their 57% converted to the Senate is not enough to block the Obama/Clinton/KhmerRougr Kerry Democrat Posse from getting their way under the "Corker Bill." They'd have to have 67 to overcome the veto. If the Senate upheld their legal constitutionally mandate position as Treaty Ratifiers (and they have no legal authority to abdicate that legal role, as they have done), then they would only need 34 Senator votes to block the Commie Dems.

At 7:40 PM, Blogger Dan said...

There's a lot of confusion over this "treaty" business. This deal isn't a treaty, and clearly will never be a treaty, since a treaty requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to pass it. The argument is simply over whether the president can unilaterally implement the US side of the deal, using the various clauses in the sanctions laws that allow him to waive them on "national security" grounds or some equivalent. The Corker bill essentially says that if Congress can muster a veto-overriding majority, then the executive waiver options are thereafter closed. This is equivalent to Congress passing new legislation to revise the previous sanctions bills, removing presidential discretion from them.

I have no idea whether there's a veto-proof majority for blocking the president's plans to gut the sanctions, but it's important to remember that this is not a treaty--which means that it's not the least bit binding on the next president, who is free as of January 2017 to restore all the previously legislated sanctions, as well as pursue any other measures against Iran the executive sees fit to implement. If this were a treaty, then that would not be the case.

At 8:54 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

It isn't just "sanctions clauses"!!! Didn't they say that the US will try to block any attempt from outside (e.g., Israel) to counter the Iranian nuke program? Does that make it a treaty if they oh say shoot down Israeli aircraft, as they apparently threatened to do last year? Or if they impose military equipment sanctions on Israel (as they also did before) on Iran's behalf?

This is a Treaty against our ally, Israel, not just "sanctions gutting." Won't Israel be a Lucky Duck to make it to January 2017, as the previous commenter breezes.

And, BTW, Israel... thinking all you gotta do is pivot to China... I saw an article that said Iran is going to buy Chinese J-10 aircraft, with Israeli tech in them. DO YOU WANT CHINA TO GET YOUR NEWEST STUFF? Because, as the US knows, China lifts every design from anybody doing business there. Just something to think about.

At 11:43 PM, Blogger Baruch Who? said...

It would seem to me that the Harvard trained lawyer and University of Chicago (?) law professor, President Obama, doesn't understand what average person understands about contracts. If you don't know what's in the agreement don't sign it - beware.

If one were to purchase a used car from a known shady dealer and he/she says you can kick the tires and examine the exterior of the car but you can't look under the hood. Wouldn't you know to run - not walk - away from the potential deal?

It's simply mind boggling that as President and someone with such laudable and sought after legal credentials that he should have signed an agreement with a notoriously rogue nation like Iran without having reviewed every single related document.

To me, as I'm not a lawyer and just a mere mortal, that this sounds akin to something like legal malpractice. As POTUS it seems to me to rise to a higher plane above legal malfeasance.

At 12:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

To assume that the sanctions regime will EVER be put back into effect is to believe that unicorns are rampant.

How stupid do you have to be to imagine that China and Russia will ever agree to sanctions again, let alone the EU?

At 5:08 AM, Blogger Rob said...

Hi Carl (and Mazel Tov, BTW).

This fiasco was set up by Mitch McConnell and Bob Corker (R-TN). When Obama threatened not to bring this to congress at all but go strictly through the UN, the Senate caved and gave up their advise and consent power.

In Corker's bill, they agreed that in exchange for 60 days oversight and Obama's going through congress rather than the UN, they would agree to vote on it as an EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT.

So rather than needing 2/3 to pass, it now needs a 2/3 majority to overcome a presidential veto. Obama signed this so called compromise 'reluctantly' (likely while laughing so hard he had trouble signing the bill) and then went to the UN anyway where he got a binding Series 7 resolution passed.

If congress passes their 'resolution of disapproval' Obama will veto it. Then, it needs 2/3 of the House and Senate to override the veto.

Obama has already said that even if the veto is overridden, he will still honor the Iran Deal regardless. It will be in force until January 22nd, 2017 when Obama leaves office.


Post a Comment

<< Home