Forget Obama...Republicans made the Iran nukes deal possible

Mark Levin has been shouting until he is blue in the face that this truly awful nuclear deal with Iran has been made possible only with the help of Senate Republicans, who passed a bill (99-1, with Tom Cotton of Arkansas the only sane dissenter) making it nearly impossible to stop Obama's agreement with the ayatollahs:

Normally, here's how treaties work: the President negotiates a treaty with another country, like the deal he is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons development. Once the treaty is negotiated, it's submitted to the Senate. Two thirds of the Senate has to vote to approve, or ratify, the treaty. If two thirds do not support it, it is not binding.

But the bill the Congress sent to the President turns things on its head. It will allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran, and unless Congress objects with a 2/3 vote within 30 days, the President's actions are allowed to stand. See the reversal? Formerly, the President needed a 2/3 vote to act, and now the Congress needs a 2/3 vote to stop him from acting. And be assured the Democrats will never let the Republicans get that many votes.

Cruz, Rubio and Paul fought this measure procedurely, at first... but then voted for it on final passage. Totally inexplicable. And totally wrong, from a policy and constitutional perspective.

And now listen to the Republicans roar!

The most dovish member of the 2016 Republican presidential field – Sen. Rand Paul – says he's against President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. In a Facebook post, the Kentucky senator said his three concerns were: "1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran."

"I will, therefore, vote against the agreement," he said.

Rand, if you knew that this would happen, why did you vote for a procedure that makes it impossible to stop Obama's agreement?  What were you thinking?  What were you smoking?

"You've created a possible death sentence for Israel," fumed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I've ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast."

No, Lindsey; your voting for the bill that makes it impossible to stop Obama's deal is the most dangerous, irresponsible step.  

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the deal appeared to further the administration's "flawed" approach and said Congress's job is now to "weigh why a nuclear agreement should result in reduced pressure on the world's leading state sponsor of terror."

No Mitch, Congress has no job since you voted to require a 2/3 vote to challenge Obama. You're just talking tough for the cameras, you knew what you were doing when you gave up this power.

The GOP-led Congress plans to review the deal for two months before voting on whether to lift sanctions sometime in September, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters on Monday night. Obama will need to rally at least 34 senators to his defense to blow up a veto-proof majority[.]

Corker was the brilliant mind who created this legislation.  Hey, Corker, if you had only done nothing, Obama would have needed 67 senators to support his deal.  Your legislation reduced it to only 34.  Give yourself a pat on the back, Corker!

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that he anticipated that Congress would at the very least withhold majority support for the deal, if not vote to block it altogether.

Hey, Marco, if you hadn't voted for Corker's bill, a majority in opposition could have stopped Obama.  Now, a simple majority is meaningless.

After negotiators reached a preliminary agreement in April, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz warned that the framework for the nuclear agreement with Iran was a "bad deal," saying that it would appear to "dramatically undermine the national security of the United States."

Then why did you vote for it, Ted?  This is disappointing from an otherwise very promising candidate.

Republicans made this all possible.  It's an old game: give sound bites against deficit spending, Obamacare, illegal aliens, and then vote exactly the way Obama wants them to.  Don't be fooled by all this simulated outrage.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

Mark Levin has been shouting until he is blue in the face that this truly awful nuclear deal with Iran has been made possible only with the help of Senate Republicans, who passed a bill (99-1, with Tom Cotton of Arkansas the only sane dissenter) making it nearly impossible to stop Obama's agreement with the ayatollahs:

Normally, here's how treaties work: the President negotiates a treaty with another country, like the deal he is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear weapons development. Once the treaty is negotiated, it's submitted to the Senate. Two thirds of the Senate has to vote to approve, or ratify, the treaty. If two thirds do not support it, it is not binding.

But the bill the Congress sent to the President turns things on its head. It will allow the President to lift sanctions on Iran, and unless Congress objects with a 2/3 vote within 30 days, the President's actions are allowed to stand. See the reversal? Formerly, the President needed a 2/3 vote to act, and now the Congress needs a 2/3 vote to stop him from acting. And be assured the Democrats will never let the Republicans get that many votes.

Cruz, Rubio and Paul fought this measure procedurely, at first... but then voted for it on final passage. Totally inexplicable. And totally wrong, from a policy and constitutional perspective.

And now listen to the Republicans roar!

The most dovish member of the 2016 Republican presidential field – Sen. Rand Paul – says he's against President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. In a Facebook post, the Kentucky senator said his three concerns were: "1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance, 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity, 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran."

"I will, therefore, vote against the agreement," he said.

Rand, if you knew that this would happen, why did you vote for a procedure that makes it impossible to stop Obama's agreement?  What were you thinking?  What were you smoking?

"You've created a possible death sentence for Israel," fumed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I've ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast."

No, Lindsey; your voting for the bill that makes it impossible to stop Obama's deal is the most dangerous, irresponsible step.  

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the deal appeared to further the administration's "flawed" approach and said Congress's job is now to "weigh why a nuclear agreement should result in reduced pressure on the world's leading state sponsor of terror."

No Mitch, Congress has no job since you voted to require a 2/3 vote to challenge Obama. You're just talking tough for the cameras, you knew what you were doing when you gave up this power.

The GOP-led Congress plans to review the deal for two months before voting on whether to lift sanctions sometime in September, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told reporters on Monday night. Obama will need to rally at least 34 senators to his defense to blow up a veto-proof majority[.]

Corker was the brilliant mind who created this legislation.  Hey, Corker, if you had only done nothing, Obama would have needed 67 senators to support his deal.  Your legislation reduced it to only 34.  Give yourself a pat on the back, Corker!

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said that he anticipated that Congress would at the very least withhold majority support for the deal, if not vote to block it altogether.

Hey, Marco, if you hadn't voted for Corker's bill, a majority in opposition could have stopped Obama.  Now, a simple majority is meaningless.

After negotiators reached a preliminary agreement in April, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz warned that the framework for the nuclear agreement with Iran was a "bad deal," saying that it would appear to "dramatically undermine the national security of the United States."

Then why did you vote for it, Ted?  This is disappointing from an otherwise very promising candidate.

Republicans made this all possible.  It's an old game: give sound bites against deficit spending, Obamacare, illegal aliens, and then vote exactly the way Obama wants them to.  Don't be fooled by all this simulated outrage.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.