WaPo: "Obama Needs To Provide Real Answers To Netanyahu’s Arguments

Editorial Cartoon by AF Branco

Today in Washington, D.C. - March 4, 2015
The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today and resumed consideration of S.J. Res. 8, a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the National Labor Relations Board’s recent ruling allowing ambush union elections.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 53-45 to agree to the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 8. Today at 11:30, the Senate voted 53-46 to pass S.J. Res. 8.

Senate Democrats have dropped their filibuster of the veto override on the Keystone XL pipeline bill, so at 2:20 PM this afternoon, the Senate will vote on overriding the president’s veto of S. 1, the bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The House reconvened at 10 AM. They may consider today:
H.R. 749 — "To reauthorize Federal support for passenger rail programs, and for other purposes."
H.R. 1213 — "To make administrative and technical corrections to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995."

Yesterday the House agreed (257-167) to a Senate amendment to H.R. 240 "Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015" with 75 Republicans joining 182 Democrats to approve the Amendment. 167 Republicans voted against the amendment.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) commented after the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, which centers on the legality of subsidies offered under ObamaCare: "Not a day goes by without a reminder that ObamaCare is a disaster for working families and small businesses. The law has raised premiums, forced millions off their plan, and slashed benefits for seniors – all contrary to the promises made by this administration. Now, during tax filing season, the law is wreaking havoc on American taxpayers. It should be repealed and replaced with common-sense solutions that lower cost and protect jobs.

“ObamaCare is so far beyond repair that administration officials say they have no backup plan should the Supreme Court strike down the law’s core subsidies. The administration says it is confident it will prevail, just like how it was confident implementation would go smoothly and the law would be popular. While the administration has no alternative, Republicans are discussing thoughtful solutions to help middle-class families and give them more control over their health care. We owe that to all those who have been hurt by this nightmare of a law.”

The Wall Street Journal editors write today" “the Israeli Prime Minister’s critique [of the Administration’s pending nuclear deal with Iran] was as powerful as Mr. Obama feared.”

“Point by point, he dismantled the emerging details and assumptions of what he called a ‘very bad deal,’” they explain. “The heart of his critique concerned the nature of the Iranian regime as a terror sponsor of long-standing that has threatened to ‘annihilate’ Israel and is bent on regional domination. . . .

“Mr. Netanyahu noted that the pending deal would lift the economic sanctions that have driven Iran to the negotiating table. ‘Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger?’ Mr. Netanyahu asked. ‘Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?’ These are good questions that the Administration should be obliged to answer.

“The Prime Minister also rightly raised doubts about whether even an intrusive inspections regime could guarantee enough notice if Iran seeks to divert its nuclear capabilities to build a bomb. North Korea agreed to inspectors in a deal with the Clinton Administration, he noted, only to oust them years later and build its nuclear arsenal: ‘Here’s the problem: You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.’

"He also zeroed in on the deal’s acceptance of Iran’s already robust nuclear infrastructure, coupled with a 10-year sunset provision after which Iran could enrich as much uranium in as many centrifuges as it likes. To appreciate the scope of this concession, recall that the Administration and U.N. Security Council demanded that Iran ‘halt all enrichment activities’ in a resolution adopted in 2010.

“The Administration now says that it can’t plausibly forbid Iran from having some enrichment capability. But the only alternative to zero enrichment isn’t the major capacity the White House is now prepared to concede to Tehran. Such a capability makes it easier for Iran to cheat on any agreement it signs. The sunset provision also means that Iran can simply bide its time to build an even larger nuclear capacity.

“‘Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal,’ Mr. Netanyahu said, and it could also ‘get to a bomb by keeping the deal.’”

Even The Washington Post’s editors thought the Prime Minister raised some important questions. “Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide,” they write.

“The Israeli prime minister’s most aggressive argument concerned the nature of the Iranian regime, which he called ‘a dark and brutal dictatorship’ engaged in a ‘march of conquest, subjugation and terror.’ Saying that the regime’s ideology is comparable with that of the Islamic State, he asserted that it could not be expected to change during the decade-long term of an agreement. He proposed that controls on the nuclear program should be maintained ‘for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.’ . . .

“‘Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime,’ he said. Is that wrong? For that matter, is it acceptable to free Iran from sanctions within a decade and allow it unlimited nuclear capacity? Rather than continuing its political attacks on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified — or reconsider it.”

As the WSJ editors concluded, “Given Mr. Obama’s reaction, the Prime Minister knows his real audience is Congress and the American people. His speech raised serious doubts about an accord that has been negotiated in secret and which Mr. Obama wants Americans to accept without a vote in Congress.”

The AP adds, “A key Democratic sponsor of the legislation, which would allow a congressional vote on any deal the United States signs with Iran to curb its nuclear program, said Tuesday night that he's outraged that GOP leaders want to fast-track the bill.”

According to Politico, “Many Democratic Iran hawks look to Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) for guidance on Iran issues, and an ‘outraged’ Menendez said on Tuesday evening he’ll vote against his own bill if he has to. ‘There is no emergency, this deal – if there is one – won’t be concluded until almost summer. Let’s do this the right way,’ Menendez said. ‘If this is the process then I will have no choice but to use my voice and vote against any motion to proceed to the bill.’ A Republican aide shot back at Menendez: ‘Launching a filibuster of your own bill is going to be pretty tough to explain to constituents.’”

“The GOP leader’s decision to move forward on that legislation came just a few hours after Netanyahu warned Congress that President Barack Obama’s administration and other world powers were pursuing a ‘very bad deal’ with Iran. ‘We think the timing is important. We think it will help the administration from entering into a bad deal. But if they do, it will provide an opportunity for Congress to weigh in,’ McConnell said Tuesday.

“The first procedural votes on the bill from Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) will likely occur next week as Iran talks are expected to intensify. McConnell said it’s possible the Senate could consider an amendment to the bill that would enact new sanctions on Iran if it backs away from talks or violates any nuclear agreement.”

Importantly, Politico notes, “Corker’s bill has five Democratic co-sponsors as well as an independent, which would be enough to advance the bill next week past an initial filibuster if they also support the bill on the floor.”

These Democrat cosponsors should vote to begin debate on this important bill to send a strong, bipartisan signal to the Obama administration that Congress must review any potential deal with Iran.

---

Tags: President Obama, real answers, Netanyahu enlargements, Iran, nuclear weapons To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!