Obama said that as a former senator himself, he understood how outside forces -- like special interests and donors -- can influence senators to act, one of the senators recounted.Obama played the same schtick in the SOTU. When it comes to Iran, there's Obama's way and there's total WAR:
That's when Menendez stood up to challenge the President, telling Obama he took "personal offense" to his assertions, the New York Times reported, arguing that he has worked to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions for many years and was not motivated by political considerations.
Anyway, I now get to the State of the Union address. Obama said that he would veto any new sanctions bill that “threatens to undo” his “progress.” Then he said, “The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.”Why do you want to go to WAR, Senator Menendez?
So, you see? Support for sanctions — in the event of failed talks — equals support for war. Sanctions-supporter equals war-supporter.
Obama is back on the campaign trail, stirring up credulous college students, and whining that he's ready to work with Republicans if, gosh darn it, they just abandon everything they ran on in the last election.
Because that's the kind of stand-up guy Obama is. You're welcome, America.
4 comments:
Now, if the Republicans can just avoid being obstructionist by passing laws that Obama has to veto, we can start enjoying the post-Republican era that the two-thirds of the people who didn't vote in November, voted for.
With an approval rating the same as Obama’s today, and in the wake of the same midterm ass-kicking, here is Ronald Reagan reaching across the aisle in his 1987 State of the Union:
“You know, we Americans have always preferred dialog to conflict. And so, we always remain open to more constructive relations with the Soviet Union... But I will need, and American negotiators in Geneva will need, Congress’ support. Enacting the Soviet negotiating position into American law would not be the way to win a good agreement. So, I must tell you in this Congress I will veto any effort that undercuts our national security and our negotiating leverage.”
One would think a little humility would have been in order. At the time of the speech, Reagan was just months removed from vetoing Congressional sanctions on apartheid South Africa. Reagan insisted on pursuing a diplomatic policy of “constructive engagement.” The Democrats had 47 Senators and 258 Representatives, but Congress handily overrode Reagan’s veto with 78 and 313 votes. This led Reagan to respond, “Punitive sanctions, I believe, are not the best course of action; they hurt the very people they are intended to help. My hope is that these punitive sanctions do not lead to more violence and more repression... this will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”
The current Congress is free to exercise that power over the current President, as it is beyond question that he is far more imperial and resistant to consensus than President Reagan was.
Bonus moral relativism fact: In 1975, Israel agreed to sell South Africa’s apartheid government nuclear weapons.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons
Yeah, well, Republicans tend to have more integrity than Democrats. That's particularly true for this crew that marched lockstep, lemming-style, into the smallest minority since the Hoover administration.
Then this should be the most effective Republican majority since the Hoover administration. Let's watch and see what happens.
Post a Comment