ON CAPITOL HILL
OBAMA MAY NOT ACCEPT REJECTION OF IRAN DEAL
Kerry won't promise administration will follow law if Congress negates agreement
WASHINGTON – Secretary of State John Kerry dropped a quiet bombshell on an unsuspecting Democratic congressman who appeared to believe he was asking a routine question at the House Foreign Affairs committee hearing on the Iran deal Tuesday.
“Let’s say Congress doesn’t take your advice, we override a veto, and the law that’s triggered then imposes certain sanctions,” asked U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.
“Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?”
Kerry then refused to assure the congressman that President Obama and his administration would follow the law if Congress rejects his Iran deal.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.
Instead, he replied, “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are.”
A seemingly shocked Sherman responded, as though maybe he hadn’t heard correctly, “So, you’re not committed to following the law?”
“No, I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all,” said Kerry, leaving the door wide open to the possibility the president would just ignore the law.
In an interview Tuesday, Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla told WND and Radio America that he was alarmed by the exchange.
“I think Mr. Sherman was right on,” Yoho said. “The secretary of state [is] skirting around this instead of backing up America and saying, ‘Absolutely, we are going to follow the rule of law. We are going to hold Iran’s feet to the fire.’”
The congressman said the president is clearly emboldened and has even reason to expect he can flout the law and get away with it.
“As has happened so may times in this administration, the president’s got a pen and he’s got a phone. He has audaciously talked about that,” Yoho said.
“Why would he not do that? We in the House have never held him accountable for any of that.”
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview withe Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.:
The secretary of state unloaded another bombshell when he admitted Iran may use the eventual lifting of an arms embargo under the deal to kill Americans.
He was asked if the Iranians "will use the conventional weapons made available by the Iran nuclear treaty to kill Americans or Israelis."
"Well, they may," flatly admitted Kerry.
"They may. And we have, as you know, responded to that from 1979 when they took over our embassy forward, we have put sanctions in place specifically because of their support for terror."
"I understand that," responded Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala. "You have answered my question when you said, yes, they may."
National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted two weeks ago that the arms embargo, while still in place, would not prevent Iran from simply sending money instead of weapons to its terrorists clients all around the world, after it gets a windfall of billions for agreeing to the deal.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified Tuesday that Iran would probably get "only" $56 billion once the deal is closed, not the full $150 billion that has been reported, at least, not right away.
To put that kind of money in perspective, Rep. Theodore Deutch, R-Fla., observed, "It's been reported that $200 million a year is the amount that they (Iran) use to fund Hezbollah.
Hezbollah fighters give the Nazi salute
"So if only $1 billion of the $56 billion were to go to Hezbollah, we would double the amount of support for five years, at which time the arms embargo comes off, and they're considerably more dangerous. We have to at least acknowledge that that's a concern."
Kerry dodged the point, replying, "Congressman, we can put the arms – there are plenty of opportunities to deal with the arms."
Peppered with skeptical questions by both Democrats and Republicans, Kerry also engaged in what appeared to be revisionist history in defending Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
Kerry warned the danger of Congress not approving the treaty would be allies could no longer trust the word of the United States, and that rejection of such deals was "not the traditional relationship that has been between the executive (branch) and the Congress."
Actually, the Senate has rejected 21 treaties, some of them twice.
That included the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I, which the United States never ratified.
The Senate has approved more than 1,500 treaties during the course of American history, but, an untold number were killed by purposeful neglect, left to die in committees without any action taken.
According to the U.S. Senate website, the preferred method to kill unpopular treaties has been simply to not bring them up for the votes. The website does not mention how many times that has happened.
Kerry might claim he was talking about deals, not treaties, but the only reason the Iran deal is not a treaty is because Obama refused to submit it as one, likely out of fear it would not garner the support of two-thirds of the Senate needed for ratification.
Critics have blasted the administration for not classifying the biggest arms control deal in history as a treaty.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-WIsc.
During a review of the deal by Senate Foreign Relations on Thursday, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., bluntly told Kerry the administration had "undermined Congress" by calling it a deal and not a treaty.
Kerry simply replied, "This is a deal."
"It's much more than that," shot back Johnson.
The Constitution specifies that international treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, but Obama has controlled the semantics of this issue, deliberating defining it as a "deal."
Thus, he claimed, the historic nuclear deal did not require congressional approval.
To attempt to counter that, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., sponsored a bill that requires the administration to get congressional approval for the deal.
However, if Congress rejects the deal, Obama could simply overrule that objection by vetoing the bill.
That means, the burden of proving the merit of the deal had shifted from the president to Congress.
Instead of the deal requiring two-thirds of the Senate to approve the deal, it will now take two-thirds of Congress to stop the deal, in the form of overriding a presidential veto.
Congress has 60 days to review the agreement.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., took exception to Kerry's oft-repeated claim that "This is the only deal we could get, that there's no better deal."
"Congress has a long history of instituting better deals. Example, 280 treaties, including 80 multilateral accords modified by Congress, including the arms control agreement, SALT II and the Threshold Test Ban treaty that failed to reach a vote and were modified," said Perry.
A prickly Kerry retorted, "Congressman, I don't need any lessons from you about who I represent. I've represented and fought for our country since I was out of college."
"God bless you for your service," said Perry.
Undeterred, Kerry shot back, "Don't give me any lessons about that, OK?"
Perry eventually led the exchange back to a key point, whether the deal would stop Iran from getting the kind of sophisticated technology that could stop U.S. or Israeli jets, if needed to take out Iranian facilities, in case the agreement did not stop the ayatollahs from getting the bomb.
"Is it possible that Iran will acquire Russian air defense missiles in relation to the arms embargo lifting to protect nuclear sites? Possible or not possible?" asked Perry.
"Those are not in the agreement," admitted Kerry.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/obama-may-not-accept-rejection-of-iran-deal/#e4Ulvuq7tJr5mGD3.99My comments: All of this bantering is likely to be irrelevant as Iran will Cheat and likely obtain a bomb. Obama and Kerry have Sabotaged America's interests and those of Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment