Rational explanation or excuse for screwing up?
Posted on 09/08/2015 4:49:40 AM PDT by bert
As I traveled across the Volunteer State during August, I spoke with many Tennesseans about the nuclear agreement between Iran, the United States, and other world powers. While opinions of the agreement vary, there is perhaps no greater geopolitical issue facing the world today than preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.
A strong agreement that would stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and stand the test of time was always the goal of these negotiations. That’s why when President Obama declared in 2012 that he would only accept a deal requiring Iran to “end their nuclear program,” there was hope that an agreement could win bipartisan support.
Since the administration reached an agreement in July, Congress has scrutinized it thoroughly to determine whether or not it achieves that goal.
In the coming days, the House of Representatives and Senate will debate and consider a resolution to disapprove of the administration’s Iran deal. And while we have known from the beginning that stopping a potential bad deal with Iran would be a heavy lift, many felt it was important for members of Congress – on behalf of those they represent – to carefully review and vote on any final agreement.
That’s why I authored the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly 98 to 1 and the House 400 to 25.
This legislation actually took power back from the president, and without it, he could have unilaterally implemented the deal immediately. The president never would have been forced to submit the agreement to Congress and there would have been no review and no debate on this critical national security issue.
Unfortunately, instead of using their influence to highlight the consequences of a bad nuclear deal with Iran, some have done the American people a great disservice by spreading misinformation about the process by which agreements such as this one can be implemented.
The simple truth is this: Under our form of government, the president is able to decide whether he will submit such agreements as a treaty or an executive agreement. Treaties are binding on future administrations, whereas executive agreements can be altered by the next president. President Obama made clear from the beginning of the negotiations that he had no intention to submit this agreement to the Senate as a treaty and planned to implement it solely through U.N. Security Council actions with something called a “non-binding political agreement,” which does not require Senate approval under the Constitution.
That is why it was critical that Congress passed my legislation to give the American people a voice on this consequential issue that will affect future generations.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I organized more than a dozen hearings and briefings to review the agreement, and it is only through my bill that we have been able to expose how deeply flawed the Iran deal is.
Rather than end Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon, this deal legitimizes and industrializes their nuclear program over time.
Instead of holding the line on the once promised “anytime, anywhere” inspections, negotiators agreed to a managed inspections process that will require international inspectors to wait 24 days for access to a suspicious site.
Unfortunately, after only nine months, before the next president is sworn into office, the leverage shifts from us to Iran when all major sanctions are relieved. They will get access to roughly $100 billion in overseas assets within a few months, some of which will fund terrorism and instability. At that point, if the United States pushes back against violations of the agreement – or terrorism in the region or human rights violations – Iran can simply threaten to ramp up their nuclear weapons program.
Additionally, for some unknown reason, the administration thought it was sensible to remove the conventional weapons ban in five years, the ballistic missile technology embargo in eight years, and immediately lift the ban on ballistic missile testing.
All the while, Iran will be able to continue research and development, strengthen its military capabilities, have a far more rapidly growing economy, and once the major restrictions sunset in 10 to 15 years, as the president has publicly said, Iran’s breakout time will be reduced to almost zero by simply complying with the agreement.
I came to these negotiations with an open mind, but unfortunately, instead of achieving our nation’s original goal, this agreement paves the path for the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to industrialize their nuclear program with a U.S. stamp of approval, which is why I oppose implementation of this deal.
While opposition to the agreement is bipartisan – with some of the leading Democrats on foreign policy issues, including Senators Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez, and Congressman Eliot Engel, announcing they will vote against the deal – it appears the administration has secured support from enough Democrats to sustain a likely veto of the resolution of disapproval.
Nonetheless, the American people deserve to know where their elected leaders stand on this consequential agreement. Despite the administration’s preference to bypass the American people, Congress will have a serious, robust debate on your behalf, and each member must decide if they truly believe this deal is in our nation’s interest and will actually lead to a more stable world.
Bob Corker is a U.S. senator for Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Rational explanation or excuse for screwing up?
His defenders say Ted Cruz voted for the Iran deal b/c that was better than Obama acting on his own. The Cruz Iran vote was also in line with his assertive defense of Obama's TPP/TPA trade deal.
....and remember the argument made at the time of the TPA vote.....it gave Boobamba fast-track authority on TPP. The text of which was so classified, not even members of Congress were allowed to read it.
It's worth remembering that Obama calls the TPP deal "central" to his second-term legacy, as well as to his "foreign policy" and "economic" agendas.
It's unconscionable that Cruz voted to further Obama's legacy.
Stinks to high heaven of the GOPe.
Most Americans don’t have a clue about much of anything due to their own intellectual laziness.
(when it comes to county politics I’m the same way.)
Where do they stand?! 99 voted Yes to give Obama ability to approve with just 34 senators. What else needs to be said? They can now posture all they want but when it counted, they gave Obama a pass. including Cruz.
Seantor, Bob Corker, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and you have enabled Obama to place America in mortal harm’s way!!! You GOP Establishment, RINO turncoats caved in and made it easy for “Hate America” POTUS, Obama to put our nation in danger.
Senator....take a good, hard look at the the tragedy that Obama commited in the Midddle East, Slaughter, Torture, Rape, families in retreat, children murdered, total chaos, the european world in turmoil. You can bet that will be coming here to the USA, a gift from Baraack Hussein Obama & his Democrat Party. For goodness sake grow a backbone....you weak sister!!! Our countries survival is at stake!!!
One thing we know Senator Corker, you and 98 of your fellow Senators voted for making the Iran nuclear proliferation treaty a non treaty. Abdicating your responsibility in my opinion, a violation of the oath you took when you were sworn into that office.
But, who am I to complain to royalty such as you 99 great, great men and women?
A nobody that in the grand scheme of things doesn’t matter anymore to you wonderful folks than flea in a pack of coyotes.
“President Obama made clear from the beginning of the negotiations that he had no intention to submit this agreement to the Senate as a treaty and planned to implement it solely through U.N. Security Council actions with something called a “non-binding political agreement,” which does not require Senate approval under the Constitution. “
RINOs and most Democrats
“99 voted Yes to give Obama ability to approve with just 34 senators.”
That 34 senators vote is the problem. They had the right idea of the agreement requiring a vote in Congress, but a straight majority would obviously have been a lot better.
Bob is a real FOOL, he’s really screwed up the USA.
Corker stood the Constitution on its head in his effort to make it impossible for the Senate to stop the Iran “deal”.
Treason
According to the prevailing theory of those in office, the only thing Americans deserve is Shi’ite. And they’re getting it in spades.
Yet, you pushed it through without calling it a treaty!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.