Posted on 09/10/2015 5:53:36 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
The GOPe has already handed Iran $100 billion, and they’re not even ashamed. And Sen. Ted Cruz has proved once again that it’s not easy being right--and alone.
Cruz’s brilliant speech at the anti-Iran deal rally on Capitol Hill hit congressional leadership right between the eyes. That speech will come back to haunt Sen. Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner for many years, and historians will cite it long after their deaths as the equivalent of Churchill’s response to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” visit to Munich.
Having thus fortified myself by the example of others, I will proceed to emulate them. I will, therefore, begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have.To which Lady Astor interjected: “Nonsense.”
(Contrast Cruz’s speech with Trump—who addressed the crowd first, summiting the platform to REM’s “The End of the World (as we know it)”.)
Lacking Neville Chamberlain’s genteel manner, McConnell spoke what would almost certainly become a baldfaced lie, if Congress followed the Corker law and refused to vote, in reply, “As I understand law, once Sept. 17 passes is it not the case that the president will take the view that he is free to go forward.”
Employing the double-negative to make such a specious argument, what he really meant to say is, “we must have a show vote on the Iran deal so the president can proceed without appearing to be unilateral,” leaving out the part that President Obama is free to lift sanctions on his own by executive action under current law. But Obama wants the color of law and the congressional imprimatur to proceed so he can saddle the next president with a truly catastrophic deal.
And Cruz is completely alone in the Senate, if you ask the GOPe.
A senior Senate GOP aide said Cruz is on his own.Corker—the author of the legislation which required Obama to turn over all materials, including side deals, to Congress—is going along with the show. Corker’s bill was a deal with the White House, but Obama is altering the deal (pray he doesn’t alter it any further).“He seems to be the only member advocating a totally different strategy from what everyone agreed to before,” said the aide.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) noted that senators agreed by unanimous consent to debate and vote on the disapproval resolution as soon as they returned from the August recess.
He said his colleagues had “a clear understanding that the vote would take place on a certain day.”
McConnell called on Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) Wednesday to offer a more detailed rebuttal to the House plan
“What is difficult to understand is what the next course of action is if you take that position and don’t register bipartisan opposition today,” Corker said.
For reasons unclear, the GOP leadership is determined to fly this leaky, overloaded, oil-slinging airplane to failure. Paraphrasing Cruz, how will they be able to look the mothers, fathers, siblings and children of those who will certainly die in the eye and explain “why?” when America becomes the world’s largest funder of Islamic terror.
(crossposted from RedState.com)
You do remember that Cruz voted for the Corker bill?
Once elected, Cruz’ first duty should be to return the bust of Churchill to the White House.
He touched on a couple of options for individuals and states to hinder the “deal”.
BTTT
“.. because it forced Obama to hand over side deals and other material...”
The above should have been reason enough for the Republicans to steer clear of the whole thing.
The main thing wrong with the Corker bill is that it reversed the treaty clause protection in the Constitution. That has nothing to do with side deals. It is as if the Republicans said, “We don’t trust you, but we will make it easier for you.”
That speech was hard-hitting and eminently presidential.
“It was the lesser of two evils. Recognizing the fact that Obama could waive the sanctions on executive authority by himself, while submitting the shell of a useless treaty to the Senate, which didn’t include side deals and secret provisions with the UN, Cruz had to choose between that and Corker.”
According to Mark Levin and Andrew McCarthy, those are completely false choices. The Constitution gives the Senate the right to choose to label something a treaty, otherwise a president would NEVER submit a treaty.
I’ve read both posts...and the original law initiating the sanctions gave Obama (or any president) executive authority to TEMPORARILY waive the sanctions. But that doesn’t apply to the NEXT president (as McCarthy noted).
Love it! Thanks!
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.