Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Obama category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

Steve Rattner “served as lead adviser to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry in 2009 for the Obama administration.” This morning, the racist NYTimes published Rattner’s op-ed, which is simply a continuation of President Obama’s attempt to lie about the success of President Obama’s economic policies.

In President Obama’s attempt to spin his policies, he’s either forced to lying outright or he’s too unwilling to admit that his policies failed. Prior to serving in the Obama administration, Rattner “was a managing principal of the Quadrangle Group, a private equity investment firm that specialized in the media and communications industries. Prior to co-founding Quadrangle, he was an investment banker at Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, and Lazard Freres & Co., where he rose to deputy chairman and deputy chief executive officer.” But I digress.

In his op-ed, Rattner wrote that “For the second consecutive Friday, the Trump administration had an opportunity to point to fresh data that supposedly demonstrates the strong boost the president’s policies have given to the nation’s economy. Last week, news that the gross domestic product expanded at a 4.1 percent rate in the second quarter occasioned a presidential appearance on the south lawn of the White House. Friday’s announcement that 157,000 new jobs were added in July was marked more modestly, with a statement from the White House.”

Let’s be clear about something. There’s no disputing the fact that the economy is stronger than it was during the Obama administration. The energy sector is booming. Manufacturing is the strongest it’s been in a generation. Unemployment in minority communities is the lowest it’s been in history. Literally trillions of dollars are flooding into the United States now that the Obama tax disaster has been repealed and replaced with the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Business investments are increasing nicely.

Yes, the economy is continuing to expand nicely, which all Americans should celebrate. But no, there’s nothing remarkable in the overall results since Mr. Trump took office. Most importantly, there is little evidence that the president’s policies have meaningfully improved the fortunes of those “forgotten” Americans who elected him.

Nancy Pelosi called the tax cuts “crumbs.”

This is Rattner’s more elegant way of saying that the Trump economy is delivering crumbs to the American people. Tell that to these people:

According to the workers at Granite City Works, President Trump’s policies aren’t just providing jobs after the plant was idled on President Obama’s watch. It’s that those workers said that Granite City, IL is getting rebuilt one neighborhood, one family at a time.

Yes, Mr. Rattner, there were far too many people forgotten by President Obama’s policies. If you weren’t part of the well-connected crowd, you didn’t share in the prosperity. If you didn’t work in one of the industries that President Obama picked as a winner, you were in tough shape. Those forgotten workers aren’t forgotten anymore.

The dishonesty of people like Mr. Rattner and other Obama administration spinmeisters is disgusting. President Obama himself said that he planned on shutting down the coal industry. President Obama said that tons of jobs weren’t coming back. He’s right in once sense. Those jobs wouldn’t have come back with his disastrous tax and regulatory policies. Now that those policies have been replaced by pro-growth economic policies, things have gotten consistently better.

As a result, consumer confidence is sky-high and the economy is robust again. How do I know? I know by the amount of traffic on the highways heading out on vacation. This Friday, the traffic on Highway 10 (at 11:00 am, I might add) was bumper-to-bumper. I never saw that during the Obama administration.

That’s because people have money in their pockets to spend again. The behavior of the American people is dramatically different. That’s reflected in the consumer confidence numbers.

No amount of Obama administration spin will change that.

One thing that’s apparent from this past week is that the Democrats’ plan to counter the good economic news is to insist that President Obama deserves great credit for the strong economy. During the first roundtable discussion on Fox News Sunday, Democrat spinmeister Mo Elleithee went right to work on that storyline.

First, Chris Wallace asked “Mo, there has been a lot of talk about a blue wave this November, a big Democratic pickup, may be control of the House, maybe even control of the Senate. But I think you would agree in the absence of where the economy is always the top issue and when you got strong economic growth, when you got historically low unemployment number, isn’t that a pretty strong record for Republicans to run on?” Elleithee replied by saying “Look, first of all, we should all be celebrating 4.1 economic growth. That’s a good number, a strong number. It also would have been the fifth strongest number of the Obama administration, right? The Obama administration — this is the continuation of economic recovery that began in 2009 and 2010. That strong economy wasn’t enough to save Democrats last time. It’s not enough to say it will be enough to say it would save Republicans this time.”

Republicans on the panel should’ve jumped on that immediately. Unfortunately, notorious Trump-hater Jonah Goldberg sat silent. Ditto with Jillian Turner. Since they sat silent, I’ll say what I would’ve said had I been on that panel. First, I would’ve highlighted the fact that President Trump and the GOP Congress scrapped the Obama-era tax system. They essentially threw it out and started from scratch. Thanks to the Trump/GOP tax cuts, business investment is accelerating, capital from overseas investments are flooding into the United States where manufacturing plants are being built or re-opened.

Remember when the Obama administration told us that those jobs were gone forever? I certainly remember. Apparently, all that was required were the right policies. Manufacturing is back in a big way. President Obama doesn’t get credit for the manufacturing rebound.

President Trump unleashed the energy sector by eliminating President Obama’s regulations that were intended to strangle the fossil fuel industry. Now we’re a net exporter of fossil fuels. Another thing is that the manufacturing sector is getting stronger quickly. That’s what I’d expect. President Obama worked tirelessly to put the fossil fuel industry out of business. He can’t take credit for that resurgent industry, the jobs it’s creating or the communities it’s rebuilding. Remember this statement from the campaign trail?

This month’s job report showed that people are returning to the workforce because they know there’s finally good-paying jobs available. In fact, for the first time in history, there are more job openings than there are workers to fill those positions. A frequent highlight of the Obama-era jobs reports was the part where they’d say how many people dropped out of the workforce or how the workforce participation rate had dropped. President Obama can’t take credit for that.

President Obama can’t take credit for surging consumer confidence or business confidence, either. Neither sector was particularly confident during the Obama administration. In truth, there’s nothing from the Obama administration’s policies that are contributing to the strengthening Trump economy. Period.

Frequently, Democrats have tried giving President Obama credit for the Trump economic growth. I won’t mince words — they’re lying through their teeth. The policies that President Obama put in place at the start of his administration produced pathetic economic growth. Stephen Moore highlights that economic growth during President Obama’s final year was 1.6%. During the campaign, economists ridiculed then-Candidate Trump when he said that his goal was 3-4% economic growth. They’ve already been proven wrong.

Let’s review President Obama’s policies, starting with high regulations that stifled economic growth. Big businesses weren’t bothered. Small businesses were hit hard. Incentives to invest in their businesses were essentially eliminated.

The Obama administration’s policies that were hostile against fossil fuels, pipelines and small businesses have been eliminated, which has led to improved economic growth and a huge increase in energy exports to other nations. The framework for a new trade deal with the EU includes a massive increase in sales of liquefied natural gas and other fossil fuels. The Obama administration was opposed to fossil fuels. The increase in fossil fuel production during the Obama administration happened because they fossil fuels on lands where federal permits weren’t required.

Obama shouldn’t get credit for opposing those policies. President Trump and the Republican Congress get the credit those policies because they’re the ones who implemented them.

The Obama administration raised taxes on small businesses and corporations. That resulted in companies hiding their money in other countries to the tune of $4,000,000,000,000. Now that that tax has been cut, the money is flooding back in and creating jobs here in the US. The Obama administration certainly shouldn’t get credit for opposing policies that increased economic growth.

Very few of President Obama’s economic policies are still intact. The turnaround in economic activity has been dramatic. In short, the Trump economy is growing fast. The Obama economy barely grew.

President Obama shouldn’t get credit for anything except that he showed us what not to do.

After reading Scott Johnson’s post, a contrarian thought popped into my head. In his post, Scott quoted Andrew McCarthy as saying that the “Obama administration decided to use its counterintelligence powers to spy on the Trump campaign, using at least one covert informant, electronic monitoring of communications, and other intelligence-gathering tactics.” He then quoted McCarthy as saying “It ignored the norm against deploying such tactics against political opponents, not based on evidence of a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy, but on speculation about the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts and Russia sympathies. Speculation by a government, an administration, and a Democratic-party nominee with their own abysmal histories of Russia contacts and Russia sympathies.”

Anyone that’s paid a minute of attention to this case knows that the Clinton Slush Fund, aka the Clinton Foundation, had ties to some nasty Russian companies and oligarchs. My question for the legal eagles and people from the intelligence community is whether it’s plausible to think that the Obama administration used its intelligence capabilities to find out if Trump had discovered a connection between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian government or Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin.

Written by Rambling Rose

Unthinkable. Despicable. Kids learned to “play” the system. Obama “played” the students, teachers and parents. We all lost. Will we stand by again or will we act?

While we all would like a ‘second chance’ when we err, students with the PROMISE plan for school infractions quickly learned that it is a sham that they can (able) and may (no consequences so permission is implicit) exploit. They learned how to play the system for countless second chances. What happened to the expectation of teaching the next generation responsibility and accountability? What happens to an academic program when discipline is absent from the classroom, the school building, the school district?

We have learned the answer—more and more school shootings by mentally disturbed, glory-seeking individuals who have gotten by with other acts of violence in the schools and fear no consequences in those ‘gun-free’ zones. The get-out-of-jail-free card is not restricted to the board game Monopoly. That seems the foundation of the whitewashing discipline program PROMISE.

While Obama promised to heal the racial/ethnic divide in this country, the truth is that he skillfully set up more barriers between groups. One such tool of division and unrest is the PROMISE program. It was instituted “…by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education in 2014, [and] includes a call for schools to ensure that they are not involving law enforcement in routine disciplinary issues. It also put schools on notice that they may be in violation of civil rights laws if their disciplinary policies lead to disparately high discipline rates for students of color, even if those policies were written without discriminatory intent.” With such threats from the federal government, it is not surprising that school districts “embraced” the mandate…often with no public disclosure of those changes unless someone knew to investigate the discipline handbook of their community’s district. But who would look? Until the shooting at the Parkland High School, the public knew little or nothing about the PROMISE program to whitewash students’ infractions.

Following the massacre in February 2018 in one of the Broward County district schools, Parkland High School, people asked if the shooter (name withheld to not add to his notoriety) had ever been arrested, which would have denied him the right to purchase firearms. The suspect was known for violent acts, including the killing of small animals for sport and the vandalism of a school bathroom while yet in middle school. The sheriff’s office had been called to his home dozens of times. Both the school deputy and the FBI received tips that this disturbed individual was planning a school shooting. The school had even recommended an involuntary mental evaluation. But nothing was done by officials to intervene and prevent the tragedy. They were following the Obama directive and needed to protect the image of the school.

In the culture of leniency of PROMISE, violators of the same infraction 10 times are treated as if it were the first offense. The South Florida Sun Sentinel reviewed the district’s discipline policies and reported in early May:

  • “Students can be considered first-time offenders even if they commit the same offenses year after year.
  • The district’s claim of reforming bad behavior is exaggerated.
  • Lenient discipline has an added PR benefit for the district: lower suspensions, expulsions and arrests along with rising graduation rates.”

The district claims a 90% success rate of students not re-offending. However, the Sun Sentinel revealed the real meaning of that claim. Here is the scam that the students have learned to play. “A student can commit a subsequent infraction without being considered a repeat offender, as long as it’s not the exact same violation, in the exact same year. The following year, they start with a clean slate.”

The shooter was suspended some 67 days during a year and a half in middle school and continued to have problems in high school. However, his record didn’t show that. The administrators use the numbers to market their school. They do not want their school to be perceived as dangerous. Parents would not send their children to those schools if the truth were known. Only after tragedy hits the school, does the community learn the awful truth. Their children became the innocent victims of those who have enjoyed endless second chances to whitewash their school records.

How many more innocent students, teachers and school personnel will be sacrificed on the PC altar before the culture of leniency is revoked and personal accountability for personal actions is restored? Although the identity of the first person to make this statement seems to be debatable, its truth is widely repeated, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Who will do nothing? Who will act?

CNN’s article about President Trump starts off by reading like a fashion critique rather than like a serious news article.

Early in the article, it says “This may be the first Department of Justice criminal investigation ordered via Twitter feed. Given the importance of a presidential decision regarding a possible criminal investigation, the use of Twitter was completely inappropriate. It trivializes the entire process. What’s next in the presidential communication arsenal, the use of Facebook and Instagram with photos?”

The message from that paragraph seems to be ‘how dare he use Twitter to express his opinion’. That’s kind of disappointing considering the fact that the investigation President Trump ordered was about determining whether the Obama Justice Department or the Obama FBI sought to infiltrate the Republicans’ presidential campaign for strictly partisan reasons. At a time when people get their news from social media, why wouldn’t President Trump use Twitter to put pressure on the Deep State? Why wouldn’t President Trump use Twitter to put John Brennan, Jim Comey and Jim Clapper on notice that they’d better hire a good lawyer?

The CNN article also treats this situation like it was normal:

In modern times, though, most presidents have taken a hands-off approach with respect to specific criminal investigations in a deliberate effort to keep them out of partisan politics and to preserve public respect for the integrity of federal law enforcement authorities.

This investigation is totally about partisanship. The fact that the NYTimes and the Washington Post tried spinning it as the Obama administration’s attempt to protect the Trump campaign is laughable. It’s disgusting that CNN tries peddling that same line in their article:

Part of the DOJ and the FBI ‘s job is after all the conduct of counterintelligence investigations and, if warranted by the evidence, the warning of presidential candidates that the Russians might try to infiltrate their campaigns to influence the American election. One would think that Trump would be grateful rather than suspicious about the warning.

Apparently, CNN didn’t notice that the DOJ and FBI didn’t warn the campaign. Rather, when then-President-Elect Trump insisted that his campaign had been surveilled, people openly ridiculed him, saying that couldn’t happen in America. Now they’re peddling this infiltration of the Trump campaign like it’s a public service? Seriously?

In the end, Trump’s attempt to embarrass his own Department of Justice and FBI is likely to wound only his own presidency. If Inspector General Horowitz makes the highly unlikely finding that the DOJ and the FBI acted criminally in their conduct of a counterintelligence operation related to the Trump campaign, a criminal referral will be necessary.

I’m almost to the end of the article and the ‘reporter’ still hasn’t told us what the investigation is about. I’ve heard about burying the lede but this is ridiculous.

The lede should be that Obama DOJ or FBI political appointees might have tried interfering in a presidential election. While the article hints at that, it certainly doesn’t lead with that.

Sunday’s Twitter order to commence a new investigation to smear the Obama administration is likely to backfire and extend the Mueller investigation. It may also cause Mueller to look at an interesting new idea — was the presidential order to commence such a frivolous investigation itself really an attempt to block the progress of the Mueller investigation and obstruct justice?

What would a CNN article be without them defending either Hillary or the Obama administration? Here’s something for CNN to think about. The thought of a presidential administration of one political party using its intelligence services to gather information on the presidential campaign of the other political party is a true threat to our system of government. There’s nothing trivial about such an investigation. Watching Kimberley Strassel lay this out is what real journalism looks like:

Unlike this CNN ‘article’, Kim Strassel’s articles have been the work product of a professional journalist.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marc Thiessen’s column highlights something about the Obama administration that’s important to highlight. Thiessen opens the column by writing “Democrats routinely express outrage over claims of collusion with a foreign power to undermine our democracy. So where is the outrage over revelations that former secretary of state John Kerry held not one but two secret meetings with Iran’s foreign minister to strategize over how to undermine President Trump’s plans to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal?” Later, he wrote “Think about what this means. Iran is a terrorist state responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq, whose leaders hold rallies where thousands chant ‘Death to America!'”

First, it’s important to highlight the double standard that Democrats employ. It’s painfully obvious to any fair-minded person. Next, it’s important to understand what’s driving Kerry’s actions. Like President Obama, he has a monstrous-sized ego. He can’t tolerate seeing his signature accomplishment get ripped to shreds early in the next administration. Had he negotiated a better deal that could’ve gotten Senate ratification as a treaty, this wouldn’t have happened. Instead, Kerry put together a deal so awful that it was rejected by politicians from both parties.

Everything that Thiessen wrote is correct. Still, there’s a bigger point worth making. There’s nothing in President Obama’s legacy (or Secretary Kerry’s) that’s solid. Everything that they did in terms of foreign policy was written in pencil. Further, the deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran was easily criticized because it gave the Islamic Republic of Iran everything they wanted. President Obama and Secretary Kerry were so desperate for a deal for their legacies that they didn’t consider walking away from a terrible deal.

Kerry’s defenders compare him to Henry Kissinger and other former secretaries of state who regularly meet with world leaders. “Secretary Kerry stays in touch with his former counterparts around the world, just like every previous Secretary of State,” a Kerry spokesman said. But Kissinger does not conduct rogue diplomacy. When he meets with foreign leaders, he usually coordinates with the White House, often carrying messages for the president, and then briefs administration officials afterward. Kerry did none of this.

It’s one thing to talk with the US’s allies. It’s quite another to talk with the biggest state sponsor or terrorism. Not even Hillary Clinton stooped to doing this. It takes some doing to do something so despicable that a Clinton wouldn’t do.

Egotists like President Obama and Secretary Kerry can’t stand the thought that their signature accomplishments didn’t stand the test of time. The only thing historic about Obama’s presidency is that he’s the first black president in US history. Everything else is meaningless.

Technorati: , , , ,

This morning, President Trump had the privilege of announcing the release of 3 North Korean hostages in this tweet. This is fantastic news for the hostages’ families and a victory for newly-installed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Trump.

It wasn’t that long ago that the Democrats and hard-left organizations like Indivisible were frantically predicting nuclear war with North Korea. Today, those Democrats and Indivisible are eating crow while people ask whether President Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize if he closes the deal that denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula.

Here’s Trump’s tweet announcing the release of the hostages:


Later, Mike ‘Pampeo‘ (Twitter ID of SecOfState70) tweeted this:


It’s still prudent to view the denuclearization deal with skepticism. Kim Jung-Un is still a shifty dictator. That being said, it’s possible that President Trump’s good cop-bad cop behavior might have Un worried that he’s dealing with a madman. History shows that dictators and autocrats make more concessions when they’re frightened by Republican presidents, especially if Democrats accuse that Republican president of wanting to start WWIII.

The truth is that everyone understands that the US is the world’s only superpower. In 1990, during the buildup to Operation Desert Storm, the media talked about the powerful Iraqi military, calling it a regional superpower. Within minutes of the start of the air war, the war was essentially over. The regional superpower was in shambles. The world superpower was proud of its first night accomplishments and hungry for more destruction to Iraq’s command-and-control capabilities.

The ‘conventional wisdom’ is that the US military has more to lose in a fight than Iran. That’s foolish thinking. I’m not saying the US should start a war with Iran. I’m saying that Iran would be decimated within moments if that confrontation started. Iran knows it, too.

That’s why I’m betting that, in the long run, Europe will side with the Trump administration in imposing new, tougher sanctions. When those sanctions hit Iran’s already-weak economy, Iran’s mullahs will pay a heavy political price.

North Korea already understands what it’s like to get pushed around by muscular US diplomats, aka President Trump and Mike Pompeo. Prior to the Trump administration, the North Koreans toyed with President Obama and John Kerry. Those days are over.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After President Trump officially announced that he was pulling out of the JCPOA, President Obama criticized him, saying “today’s announcement is … misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals.” Actually, the JCPOA wasn’t negotiated by “our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals.” It was negotiated by dimwits like John Kerry, John Brennan and Susan Rice. I’d hardly call them the best and brightest of our diplomats. I’d call them the Three Stooges.

Included in President Obama criticism was the statement that “First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.” That’s precisely what it was. It wasn’t a treaty ratified by the Senate. If it had been a negotiated treaty, it would’ve been subjected to a humiliating bipartisan rejection of President Obama’s national security policy towards Iran.

John Brennan criticized President Trump in this barely lucid diatribe:


Again, this wasn’t US agreement. That status is only conferred with treaty ratification. Without the Senate’s advice and consent, the agreement is nothing except an agreement between an idiot masquerading as a commander-in-chief and a room full of Islamic theocrats.

Further, President Trump’s decision instructs the world’s despots that he won’t tolerate wink-and-a-nod deals that don’t protect the American people. Like Charles Krauthammer once said, “it isn’t that there’s a new sheriff in town. It’s that there’s a sheriff in town.” President Trump’s official announcement sends the strong message that he’s putting a higher priority on national security than on weak-kneed diplomacy.

This paragraph illustrates how big of a liar President Obama is:

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust – it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

The inspection regime was virtually nonexistent. Inspectors couldn’t go anywhere at any time. They had to get permission from the IRGC. Then there was a thirty-day waiting time. That isn’t the definition of “far-reaching inspections.” That’s the definition of wimpy inspections agreed to by a weak-kneed American president and his pathetic ‘national security team’.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Giving perhaps the strongest speech of his presidency, President Trump outlined Iran’s transgressions, highlighted the ways in which Iran causes trouble throughout the Middle East, supports terrorists while threatening our allies. Leftist pundits are already criticizing President Trump’s decision, with Juan Williams saying that “When the President spoke today, he didn’t say ‘Oh, yeah, here’s a major violation that proves these people are not to be trusted.”

Actually, included in President Trump’s speech was a paragraph where he said “Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents long concealed by Iran, conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Shortly thereafter, President Trump said “In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget has grown by almost 40 percent, while its economy is doing very badly. After the sanctions were lifted, the dictatorship used its new funds to build nuclear-capable missiles, support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the Middle East and beyond.”

President Trump wasn’t gentle with the Obama administration or the Kerry State Department:

At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

With this speech, President Trump locked President Obama and John Kerry together in the history books as the people who agreed to and negotiated the worst foreign policy/national security deal in US history. Only desperate or foolish people negotiate a sweetheart deal like this with treacherous people who support terrorists and who want to destabilize the entire Middle East.

That’s right. The only man for a job like that is John Kerry, the only person who is more inept at negotiating important national security deals than Hillary Clinton.

Over the past few months, we have engaged extensively with our allies and partners around the world, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We have also consulted with our friends from across the Middle East. We are unified in our understanding of the threat and in our conviction that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. After these consultations, it is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.

The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons. Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

President Obama has already criticized President Trump for pulling out of the deal:

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working; that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest; it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish; its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes, with Iran, the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

Had John Kerry negotiated a worthwhile deal, President Obama could’ve sent that treaty to Congress for approval. The deal that Kerry negotiated was so terrible that Democrats rejected it. It was so bad that President Obama couldn’t have gotten it approved as a treaty if his life depended on it. As for our European allies urging us to stay in the deal, their motivation is simple. They want to do business with Iran. The more telling reaction is how the Saudis and Israelis reacted. First, here’s John Kerry’s reaction:

Let’s be clear about something. This isn’t the case of the United States backing out of one of its treaties. It’s a rare case of a president telling other nations that he isn’t bound to keep the personal promise that a previous president made.

Had President Obama tried to get the JCPOA approved as a treaty, it would’ve been rejected on a bipartisan basis. While President Obama is upset that another piece of his legacy just got thrown into history’s dumpster, President Trump won’t care because he knows a terrible deal when he sees it. Trump is intent on demolishing Obama’s legacy and getting the US back on the right track. Based on what he’s accomplished thus far, I’d say that he’s accomplishing his plan.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,