Iran from bad to worse

GOP Failure Theater: the Iran nuclear vote, Cruz-Rubio edition

By: streiff (Diary) — May 8th, 2015 | Red State

Failure Theater. When the GOP talks a good game about opposing Obama’s policies but, in fact, vote to go along with them.

Yesterday the US Senate voted 98-1 to go along with whatever Barack Obama decides to give to Iran. Though the feckless Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has portrayed it as a successful “bipartisan” bill, part of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s erotic dream of “governing”, in fact it is a huge defeat for our Constitution. By turning the treaty process on its head, by giving Obama carte-blanche to do as he will unless Congress can muster the necessary 2/3 vote to abrogate his actions, the GOP has effectively taken the Congress out of any role in shaping US foreign policy.

This bill, thanks to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s bipartisanship fetish did not even require the Iran cease supporting terrorist attacks on Americans. Nope, reasoned the addled Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and the big brain types in the GOP leadership, requiring Iran to forego terrorism before we help them get a nuke was just too much. Obama would never stand for it.

So much for strategy. And Obama is running around complaining about the Republicans? Incomprehensible chaos. Maybe Iran could nickname its program “bipartisan”?

Kerry, case of tyranny and treason

Kerry Says US Will Sign UN Arms Treaty, Ignores Congressional Opposition

Monday, 03 Jun 2013  – Newsmax

By Lisa Barron

Secretary of State John Kerry says that the U.S. will sign a controversial United Nations treaty on arms control in spite of bipartisan opposition from lawmakers.

Kerry released a written statement on Monday saying the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2 but which gun rights advocates on Capitol Hill fear could lead to new gun control measures domestically, reports Fox News.

We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” Kerry said, adding that the treaty is “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

The treaty would reportedly require countries that ratify it to establish national guidelines to govern the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers.

Supporters of gun rights have warned that it could be used as the basis for more gun control measures in the U.S.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Barack Obama and Kerry calling on them to reject the measure.

We strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms owners, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty,” they wrote.

H/T to Dave for the article

Just ignore the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. It still needs a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify it. But Kerry pays no attention to that,  he now speaks for the supreme King so he is very confident. Is he looking into Benghazigate and the arms running under the table? You can doubt that. Maybe that wind surfing went to his head.

To Russia with love

What was it Obama told Medvedev? (when he thought no one could hear him) I think it was “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Yea, that was it.

“Russia’s recent tests of ballistic missiles are clear signs Moscow is making good on announced threats to prepare preemptive strikes on U.S. missile defenses, a senior House Republican disclosed this week.
Rep. Michael Turner (R., Ohio) stated in a June 12 letter to senior Obama administration officials that he is also concerned Russia appears to be taking steps to abandon a 1980s treaty banning intermediate-range missiles.
Additionally, Russian missile developments “are clear evidence by Russia of plans for its withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty,” he said.

…Stike three!

“The May missile test was “the third new ICBM announced since the ratification of the New START treaty,” he said.
“The pattern of activities that are now being reported would completely eviscerate the INF Treaty’s impact on Russia while the U.S. continues to comply with the Treaty’s ‘zero option,’” he said.

Eviscerate? Not in the wonderful world of the Obama administration.

In this game of baseball, three strikes doesn’t mean you’re out, it only means we continue reductions and “honor” the treaty, which apparently Russia is not. (and probably never intended to)  Maybe that is what Obama meant about “flexibility”,  that he agrees to accept whatever they want to do, despite the treaty. Obviously,  in their eyes this treaty was only meant to restrict us not them.

But really now, is “more flexibility” the prescription to deal with Russia? I get it, they are doing this because we need to be more flexible. (as if he hasn’t already been) And their flagrant violations of the ballyhooed treaty go on, without a word or mention from officials in Washington. Crickets.

Oh but the closer it gets to election, expect him to tout the Start Treaty as one of his signature successes…right along with his successful green energy and jobs, and right by his lack of a real energy plan, which he likes to call an “all-of-the-above approach”

But Obama appears comfortable with an anything-goes policy from Russia with disdain. You just know what is needed is “flexibility” from US.