Obama scolds media during Iran presser
Your skepticism “makes no sense,” America
The Obama Administration is busy running a full court press on behalf of its terrible nuclear deal with Iran. Yesterday, the President sat down with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times for a softball interview, and today, he hosted a press conference to answer critics’ concerns about the contents of the deal, and the Administration’s posture toward Iran’s overall behavior.
Via Fox news:
President Obama on Wednesday staunchly defended the newly struck Iran nuclear deal, using a press conference to lecture critics and assembled media on the agreement — even admonishing a reporter who questioned his resolve on U.S. prisoners left behind that “you should know better.”
The president met the press as his national security team, and Vice President Biden, began to lobby skeptical lawmakers in Congress to back the agreement. Obama already faces bipartisan resistance to the deal, but on Wednesday challenged critics to present an alternative.
“I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about ‘this is a bad deal,'” Obama complained, speaking at the White House.
He said he doesn’t expect Republicans to get behind the deal, but asked of critics, “What is your alternative?” Obama claimed the alternative is war.
They “should know better?” The release of American prisoners held in Iran has remained at the forefront of the debate over whether or not we should even be “dealing” with Tehran in the first place, but we’re not allowed to ask for a statement on why there were no provisions in the deal advocating for them?
It’s vintage Obama.
When asked if support for the deal by Middle East dictators—and opposition by the majority of Congress and Benjamin Netanyahu—gave him pause, the President “It does not give me pause that Mr. Assad or others in Tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. That’s what politicians do… My hope is that everyone in Congress evaluates this agreement based on the facts.” Diving deeper into the question, he blamed the dissent in Congress partly on politics, and all but accused Republicans of spreading misinformation about the deal as part of an opposition campaign.
The battle on the Hill is just beginning, of course. Congressional Republicans are running offense against approval of the deal, and some outlets are reporting that GOP leadership could potentially pull off the impossible:
Our Senate whip count on Iran suggests a veto override is absolutely possible. http://t.co/kFnGwzFSA4 pic.twitter.com/2twrfBq2NP
— Chris Cillizza (@TheFix) July 15, 2015
In turn, I expect the White House to present a great deal of easily-digestible propaganda supporting the deal. They released this graphic this morning:
Starting soon: Watch @POTUS hold a press conference on the #IranDeal at 1pm ET → http://t.co/3PJ1t1gVwu pic.twitter.com/OHdwmRVdzD
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 15, 2015
As I reported previously, the fact that major key players (including Hillary Clinton) have come out in support of the deal suggest that Obama and his Democrats are supremely confident that they’ll be able to hold off conservative efforts to torch the deal via a veto override.
MarketWatch did a decent job liveblogging the presser.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Am I the only one who noticed the long pause before Jugears responded to Garrett’s query? It reminds me of the 2008 campaign where he said to a cheering crowd, “Hold on; I can’t hear myself.”
The Occam’s Razor on this is that he has an in-the-ear-canal micro-speaker feeding him his responses. Call it an auditory teleprompter.
You got it! Either that or demons! Snark!
The Democrats can all count on each other to have one another’s back. They defend each other, support each other, and have the media that protects them at every turn.
On the surface, it looks like the Democrats will easily survive this agreement fiasco.
That being said, we don’t know what Iran will do. They have proven time and time again to be liars, completely untrustworthy, and doing whatever they want regardless of consequences.
Democrats/Obama/Hillary will survive, if, and only if, Iran doesn’t do something crazy in the next year. If something bad happens though, there will be no one left to blame.
Birds of a Feather, Fluke together.
Major Garrett is headed back to Fox. CBS just got orders to fire him and none of the rest of the state controlled media will touch him with a 10 ft pole now.
Addendum: Garrett is also now on the top of the IRS audit list.
My God that guy must LOVE hearing himself talk! He just babbles on and on and on and on. Make it stop! PLEASE, MAKE IT STOP!
The odds of a successful veto override are, at best, 1 in 7. Rather than try to pull that off, they should, by a simple majority vote, go on record that the agreement is a treaty and therefore subject only to the Constitution, NOT the Corker idiocy.
Then let Obama explain how handing the Iranians the freedom to make nukes isn’t important enough to call a treaty.
They won’t do anything of the sort though. Especially not if there’s any risk of winning.
Scolding the characters who lie and cheat for you: that’s chutzpah.
It won’t just be a conservative effort to override the veto. It will be bipartisan. Like Obamacare, the Iran deal is exclusively or almost exclusively supported by Democrats, but the opposition is bipartisan.
The President arguably has “wide latitude in foreign affairs”.
The President inarguably has the Constitutional authority to submit a treaty to the Senate, where a 2/3 vote is required, else the treaty is DEAD.
But there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL basis for the President submitting anything [except a budget] to the Congress. And even if there was, which there isn’t, a negative vote by either house would kill it.
If the Congress cooperates with this charade, the Congress will be complicit in the lawlessness. That is disgraceful. That is INSANE.
Sorry, Frank, but you’re mistaken here.
While your Con-law point is probably correct, by long usage “Executive” agreements are so common as to be considered now perfectly legit.
I agree with Levin; this should be a treaty. But I also recognize it isn’t one in modern usage. And, while this one is particularly crazy and objectionable, Barracula is following where other presidents have led and other congresses have given way.
You appear to be arguing in favor of the “wide latitude in foreign affairs” point, which I acknowledge in my first sentence, though personally believe the case in point exceeds even “wide latitude”.
You also appear to concede my Constitutional law point, i.e., there is no Constitutional basis for the President submitting a “not treaty” to the entire Congress, and then potentially “veto” a negative vote by either house of the Congress.
My ultimate point was that the Congress should not participate in the charade. The “not treaty” is either an executive agreement [with a foreign sovereignty] or it’s irrelevant to the Congress.
Agreed?
Correct me if I am wrong here. But, wasn’t there a reporter kicked out of the White House Press Corp for having the audacity of asking George W Bush a question about something the DemocRATs did in Congress? Seems to me that what Major Garrett did was along the same line.