Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad to see another debate and are hopeful some actual issues can be discussed. They also discuss whether the fierce disagreement among GOP voters can heal once the nominee is decided. And they debate whether a “dislike” button would be good or bad for political discourse.
Famed attorney Alan Dershowitz is giving up hope of Congress blocking the Iran nuclear deal but he says Congress can still play a key role in demanding that Iran honor its commitments and having a pre-approved military response ready to go in the event of any violations.
Dershowitz taught for many years at Harvard Law School and also served as defense counsel in several high profile cases. He comments frequently on Middle Eastern Affairs. His most recent book is “The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes.”
Dershowitz says the moment the Corker-Cardin deal was approved, requiring a two-thirds majority to reject the plan in both the House and Senate, there was no chance of lawmakers stopping the president. However, he says all hope is not lost and the best path to preventing an Iranian nuke lies in the first part of the agreement.
“The deal itself starts with a re-affirmation by Iran that it will never, ever, under any circumstances seek to obtain, develop or secure nuclear weapons. Nobody has ever heard of that because there is, I believe, a private, secret agreement between the United States and Iran that that part of the deal is not enforceable,” said Dershowitz, directly suggesting that the U.S. and Iran are guilty of a major deception that essentially gives Iran a nuclear green light a decade from now.
“I think we’re being sold a pig in a poke. I think we’re being sold a different agreement than the agreement that the two parties, in fact, signed off on,” he added.
Regardless, Dershowitz says that language in the opening of the deal gives Congress a major opening for a two-pronged strategy. Part one, he says is to turn Iran’s anti-nuclear rhetoric into policy.
“(They should) say, ‘We accept as American policy Iran’s re-affirmation, Iran’s own promise that it will never, ever, under any circumstances, seek to develop nuclear weapons.’ We have to make that an enforceable, integral part of the deal, regardless of what the president of the United States had as a side deal with the Iranians. The deal itself says that. We’re entitled to hold them to their word,” said Dershowitz.
The second part of the Dershowitz plan is to promise a fierce response for any violation of that commitment by Iran.
“We need deterrence. We need to make sure that the Iranians know that there is a military option on the table if they cheat and rush to develop a bomb. Right now, they do not believe that the president of the United States will ever engage in military action against them. They think they’re free to do whatever they want,” said Dershowitz.
“We need Congress to authorize the president in advance to use whatever is necessary, including military, to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons. I think if we get Congress to pass such a statute, it will send a very powerful message,” he added.
Dershowitz admits Obama may refuse to sign that type of legislation, but that would put the president in a curious position.
“If he vetoes it, he’s going to have a hard time explaining to his Democratic colleagues why he’s vetoing a law which only repeats what’s in the deal, number one, and number two, which repeats what he has already said. He believes he has the authority and the will to use whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from developing weapons,” he said.
Either way, Dershowitz believes the legislation would have a positive impact.
“The strength of this proposal is that it puts President Obama’s feet to the fire and it makes him tell the American public what this deal really is and what he’s promised the Iranians,” said Dershowitz.
His ideas are already getting a favorable response on Capitol Hill, especially from lawmakers who reluctantly supported the Iran deal.
“I’ve gotten a number of calls from congressmen and senators who voted for the bill and who like my proposal and who think my proposal will make them more comfortable with their own votes,” he said.
Stunningly, Dershowitz says many of those same lawmakers were quite candid about their opinions of the Iran deal, even though they ended up supporting it.
“I have to tell you, I’ve spoken with a number of senators and congressmen, all of whom voted for the bill pretty much. Not a single one of them told me they liked the deal. Not a single one of them told me they thought it was a good deal. The best they could come up with is maybe it’s better than the alternative or it would be bad it Congress voted it down. But nobody that I’ve spoken to has a good word to say about the deal itself,” said Dershowitz.
He says that reaction is because it is a bad deal, created by poor negotiating on the part of the Obama administration.
“We gave up our competitive advantage. We’ve taken the military option off the table. We’ve taken the sanctions off the table. We have nothing. That’s why we crossed several of our own red lines and Iranians really didn’t cross any of their red lines. They’re going around boasting (about) how great this deal is,” said Dershowitz, who says all the wrong people like this deal.
“Virtually every anti-American person in the world is jumping up and down with joy. People like Noam Chomsky, who hate America, love this deal. People who have been antagonistic to America over the years love this deal,” he said.
Dershowitz says Obama may have gotten the deal to move forward but it came despite huge majorities in the House, Senate and in public opinion polls roundly rejecting the plan.
“You have to ask yourself, in a democracy, is this the way we ought to make important foreign policy decisions?” said Dershowitz.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud Liberty University students and leaders for being respectful hosts to Sen. Bernie Sanders and showing how people can disagree maturely. They also shake their heads as Pres. Obama invites pro-abortion and pro-LGBT activists to greet Pope Francis next week. And they sigh as New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone targets the scourge of fantasy football.
Russia is aggressively stepping up it’s military presence in Syria and a decorated retired U.S. Air Force general says the plan is not just to prop up the Assad regime but to pursue closer ties with Iran to dominate the region and boost it’s sputtering economy.
Major tank shipments and other weapons have arrived in Syria in recent days and some of that arsenal is already headed out to confront ISIS. Still, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says there’s nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
“We have always been frank regarding the presence of our military experts in Syria who help the Syrian army in training and learning how to use the equipment,” Lavrov said last week. “And if further steps are needed we will stand ready to fully undertake those steps.”
Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney says that’s just not true. He says there are clear short-term and long-term goals behind the Russian commitment. The immediate priority is to end the stalemate in the Syrian civil war in in favor of its longtime ally.
“There’s no question that the Russians are in for the full count to support Bashar al-Assad,” said McInerney. “Their first challenge is to defeat ISIS but also to defeat al-Nusra, which is a spin-off of Al Qaeda there, and any other adversaries that try to take Bashar al-Assad down.”
But McInerney believes that’s only the prologue.
“He’s got something much larger in mind. He sees that Iran is going to be the hegemon as a result of this nuclear agreement the Obama administration that the Obama administration has come up with. [Russian President Vladimir Putin] wants to have his chips on the side of the hegemon,” said McInerney.
“This is not just a temporary move on his part. This is a very important strategic move. He sees a weakness in the U.S. foreign policy and weakness in this administration’s desire to support historical allies that the United States has supported. It has both a tactical and a strategic purpose behind it,” he added.
The Russian-Iranian nexus seems like an odd coupling. Iran is the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism and Russia remains strongly committed to stamping out radical Islamic threats in Chechnya, Dagestan and elsewhere. Yet, Russia has led the way in supplying materials for the Iranian nuclear program.
McInerney calls it a “strategic attraction.”
“Clearly, they can sell a lot of weapons to the Iranians. They need the port in Syria because it is the only Mediterranean port that they have. That’s very important for the presence in NATO’s southern flank. Finally, they need a counter to the United States in the Middle East. If Iran’s the hegemon, and it’s closely allied with Russia, they benefit greatly,” said McInerney.
Sanctions relief is also a major consideration for the Russians, according to McInerney. Just as the nuclear talks lifted the fiscal choke hold for Tehran, the general believes Putin is smarting from sanctions targeting Moscow over it’s conduct in Ukraine.
“The difficulty is the sanctions that we have put on Russia and NATO has and the European Union because of the Ukraine are really driving the Russian economy down. They need to have allies to the south. That could be a strong economic boost to the Russian economy,” said McInerney.
So what is the proper U.S. response to Russia’s maneuvers? McInerney says Congress is embroiled in that right now.
“First, I would terminate the Iranian nuclear agreement. That is the most dangerous thing that is going on now. Is it surprising that Russia and China, who are members of the P5+1, strongly supported that agreement?” asked McInerney.
“This president will not do that, so what we are left with are tactical issues on what we can do on defeating ISIS, which helps Bashar al-Assad stay in power,” he added.
That being said, MCInerney agrees that ISIS presents a far more immediate threat than the Assad regime staying in power and strengthening troubling alliances.
“We’ve lived with Bashar al-Assad for a long time. He was on our side in Desert Storm when we went against Saddam Hussein. ISIS must be defeated and that evil ideology of radical Islam must defeated first in the Middle East,” said McInerney.
McInerney says the Middle East is getting more and more difficult to handle and this latest confluence of trouble stems from poor U.S. leadership in the region.
“This president has not left himself with many options that in the long run benefits the United States and our allies, like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, in the Middle East. He hs given his successor a very difficult hand,” said McInerney.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review marvel at Bernie Sanders opening up huge leads over Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire. They groan as Russia gets more involved in the Syrian civil war – and the Iranians. And they laugh as British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn unveils his shadow cabinet.
A leading terrorism expert says 9/11-style attacks are less likely today but smaller plots are far more likely and that makes diligent screening of refugees or any other immigrant vital for the strength of our national security.
As the nation marks 14 years since the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, Pentagon and in Pennsylvania and three years since the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the likelihood of another grand assault on our homeland is far more remote.
“In terms of radical Islamic terrorism, we’re certainly more well prepared because of all the lessons learned since 9/11. So I’d say we’re safer from a 9/11-style attack that’s more sophisticated and, therefore, more easy to intercept,” said Ryan Mauro, a professor of homeland security and a national security analyst at the Clarion Project.
But Mauro cautions that the diminished threat of a major attack doesn’t not mean we’re more safe.
“We are less safe, I think, from what’s sometimes falsely called a lone wolf attack. I say falsely because they are usually working and communicating with somebody. Those smaller attacks are a reason for why we are less safe because of developments overseas, because of the appeal of ISIS, because of the trends that we’re seeing overseas and here in the U.S., where there are an increasing number of terror arrests and terror plots,” said Mauro.
In fact, Mauro says we appear to be losing ground in the battle to stop the spread of radicalization.
“What you see is a multiple times over increase in the number of Salafist terrorists, which is the Al Qaeda brand, around the world (and in the) number of attacks around the world,” said Mauro.
He says the trend here in the U.S. is also very chilling.
“Terrorism expert Patrick Poole did a compilation of the different terror-related cases. What he found was that in the first six months of this year it was double that of the past two years combined. The appeal of ISIS, because of their perceived appeal overseas, really caused a spike in radicalization here at home,” said Mauro.
Rooting out very small plots is much harder for authorities to do, so Mauro advocates screening people coming into the country both for ideology and intent.
“You need to screen those that are coming into the United States, not focus solely on the violent illegal act, the person about to set off the bomb. What we need to have is an ideological strategy where we embrace those who stand against the Islamist ideology, Islamists meaning those Muslims that take their faith and they turn it into a political doctrine combining mosque and state, calling for the destruction of Israel,” said Mauro.
Mauro would also aggressively apply that approach to any refugees the United States considers accepting from the human tide flowing into Turkey, Greece and eastern Europe.
“We need to have a massively well-funded process to vet these individuals on an ideological basis, not ties to a terrorist group but what they actually believe and let in as many of those that pass that test as possible,” said Mauro, who says statistics show a certain percentage of the refugees probably sympathize with the ones forcing them to flee their homes.
“There was a poll done in November 2014 of 900 refugees in the countries surrounding Syria. This is important so that you understand what we’re dealing with. Four percent of those Syrian refugees said in those interviews that they had positive feelings toward ISIS. Another nine percent said they are somewhat positive. According to the poll, you’re looking at about 13 percent, at least, of Syrian refugees that have sympathies toward ISIS,” he said.
Anyone seeking to damage the United States could try to slip through the interrogation process, but Mauro says effective screening can still spot the vast majority of radicals, starting with those actually connected to terrorist groups.
“If they are so radical, to the point where they decide they’re going to infiltrate the system and lie to get in here, there’s probably going to be some information at that point about their ties to that group,” sad Mauro.
He says those persuadable towards radicalism are tougher to see but there are still clues to follow.
“You deal with radicals who haven’t chosen a group or actually reached out to a group and what do you do about them? That’s when you look at their social media account. You go through an interviewing process and you ask them questions about their ideological beliefs, and you can do that with Muslims and non-Muslims,” said Mauro.
“I think there’s nothing wrong with, when you’re letting someone into this country, asking them what their opinion is of jihad and democracy,” he added.
Until those answers can be verified, Mauro says we can send aid to other countries where the refugees are located.
“If you’re providing them with medical aid, things that can’t go to the cause of terrorism, then that’s something I could support. But before we allow people into this country, there has to be an ideological vetting process,” said Mauro.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review welcome the news that Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake will not seek re-election. They also cringe as the Pentagon admits mishandling plague samples. And they decipher Al Qaeda’s declaration of war against ISIS, leading into reflections on the anniversaries of the 9/11 attacks and Benghazi.
House conservatives are forcing an effective strategy to fight back against the Iran nuclear deal, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to lead is imperiling the effort and putting America at risk, according to one of the fiercest House critics of leadership.
Heading into this week, House and Senate leaders planned to proceed with votes to accept or reject the Iran deal, knowing full well that opponents did not have enough votes to override a veto from President Obama in the Senate.
House conservatives changed the dynamics by refusing to approve the rule to organize debate on the up-or-down vote. Instead, House Republicans will pursue a three-pronged attack. One vote will still focus on the deal itself. Another will declare the president in violation of the Corker-Cardin bill for not handing over the details of side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning nuclear inspections. The final bill would forbid the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran until January of 2017.
“The new strategy is a good strategy. If we would have gone with the first bill just to disapprove, that would have strictly been a symbolic vote. Plus, we would have been breaking the law we just passed in May, the Corker-Cardin bill,” said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Corker-Cardin required the Obama administration to turn over all text related to the agreement within five days of negotiators signing it. Lawmakers subsequently discovered the secret side deals and the administration will not provide details on it.
Yoho says Obama clearly violated the terms of the law he signed.
“The president has already gone beyond that time period. He’s not given us the full information. Had we taken that vote when we first came back, we’d have been breaking our own law that we just passed and we would have codified the president moving forward with this,” said Yoho.
While some lawmakers believe the failure to provide the details of the side agreement means the 60-day review period should be paused until that information is provided, Yoho thinks it should qualify as a deal-killer.
“I would prefer that it’s struck down because we’re beyond the time period where he should have been in compliance,” said Yoho, who believes Obama’s failure to honor Corker-Cardin should result in the agreement being trashed and negotiators heading back to the table.
While the strategy is much bolder in recent days, it’s likelihood of succeeding borders on impossible, not only because it would be tough to find 60 votes for it in the Senate but because Senate leaders have no interest in trying to fight back.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sent a letter to McConnell, pleading for the Senate to follow the House lead. McConnell flatly rejected the idea and Corker himself said Thursday that the GOP tried to stop the deal but just couldn’t.
That’s not acceptable for Yoho.
“For Mitch McConnell to say we tried and failed, leadership is lead or get out of the way. If that’s the way he feels, he needs to get out of the way,” said Yoho, who believes the American people are tired of watching the GOP Congress pile up defeat after defeat.
“The American people don’t want us to try. They want us to do,” said Yoho. “The American people are fed up with Congress trying. They want us to resolve these problems. They overwhelmingly don’t support this Iran deal and we’re the only mechanism in government that can stop this.”
If Congress fails to reject the Iran deal, as seems increasingly likely, opponents have floated the idea of cutting off funding for implementing the deal during the appropriations process later this month.
Yoho is open to that idea but once again fears McConnell does not have any stomach for the fight.
“We’ve already sent appropriations bills to the Senate. We did that last year too and the reason they were never brought up is we could blame (Democratic Leader) Harry Reid. Mitch McConnell’s in charge and he hasn’t brought one of those up. It’s because of the threat Harry Reid may block that,” said Yoho.
“Again, if you’re going to lead, lead. If not, then get out of the way. Bring those bills up. Let the people over there decide. If Harry Reid blocks them, let the American people know Harry Reid is blocking the progress of this country,” he added.
Yoho says there is no clearer evidence of America’s disgust with the current GOP leadership than the current state of the 2016 presidential race.
“Look who’s leading the polls in the Republican Party. All outsiders: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina. The American people are hoping people get in there that put politics aside. Don’t be a Republican. Don’t be a Democrat. Do what’s right for America,” said Yoho.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the emerging details of the embezzlement investigation against Huma Abedin and laugh as she throws husband Anthony Weiner under the bus. They also fume over reports that senior government officials are doctoring intelligence reports to make the fight against ISIS seem like it’s going better than it is. And they slam Donald Trump for taking boorish cheap shots over Carly Fiorina’s face and Ben Carson’s medical careers.
The Department of Veterans Affairs inspector general says over 300,000 veterans likely died waiting to be added to to the beleaguered federal program and one of the leading congressional investigators says solutions are slow in coming because VA leaders are slow to report critical data and what they do submit often cannot be trusted.
Last week, the inspector general reported that 800,000 veterans suffered unacceptable delays in getting their applications processed just to enter the system. That information did not come willingly. It was demanded by Congress.
“This is a report that came out from the inspector general simply because our committee asked for it. Now the VA’s own inspector general is admitting 800,000 records were stalled in their system,” said Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich.
Benishek was a surgeon for decades at a VA hospital in his district. He is now a member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee and chairman of its health subcommittee.
The IG report is latest massive black eye for the VA. In May 2014, whistleblowers revealed veterans were forced to wait months for treatment in many cases and some facilities cooked the books to make it look like care was being delivered in a much more timely fashion.
Despite a major reform bill signed into law last year, Benishek says it’s unclear what progress is actually being made.
“I understand it’s difficult to get things moving in government. You need to make some dramatic steps to get this ship turned around, but I don’t know that it’s actually turning around,” said Benishek.
A big reason for why lawmakers struggle to chart any improvement at the VA is the stunning lack of cooperation from the VA itself.
“If we had facts, if we had the data, then we could make better decisions. The VA’s been unforthcoming to provide that data. The administration needs to get up front and center. The president should really make this a priority,” said Benishek.
Adding to the frustration, says Benishek, is the nagging doubt about the accuracy of the little information the VA does provide to Congress.
“They keep saying, ‘We’re working on it. We’re working on it,’ and then you heard last year that all the numbers were cooked. It’s hard to trust what we get out of them. Frankly, that’s a continued problem. Until I see some improvement there I’m going to continue to hammer on them to make faster improvements,” said Benishek.
So far, it’s been one excuse after another.
“Just before we left for our break, they told us they were three billion dollars over budget in providing health care for veterans and they didn’t even know it because they had ‘old software.’ This kind of mismanagement can’t be tolerated anymore. We need to put a stop to it,” said Benishek.
One of the most hopeful aspects of the reform package last year allowed veterans to seek health care in the private marketplace and send the bill to the government. The “choice” program was expected to improve care and reduce the backlog, but it hasn’t always worked out that way.
“It hasn’t been working that well because the VA’s had a hard time signing up providers for it. I’ve had veterans complain to me that it hasn’t been working for them in all cases. I’ve had other veterans tell me that it’s working okay,” said Benishek, who says another massive headache centers around vast disparities in competency and leadership from facility to facility.
“Depending on where you are in the country, there’s different performance of the VA. There’s not a standardized performance nationwide,” said Benishek. “If you’ve been to one VA hospital, you’ve been to one VA hospital.”
Another part of the reform bill was the demand for an independent assessment of the VA’s practices. That report is due soon and Benishek says he is tentatively encouraged by the executive summary. He says one simple idea that could have a lot of hassle for veterans is for the medical records of active duty military personnel to automatically transfer from the Department of Defense to the VA.
But even the simple ideas tend to hit major roadblocks. Benishek says this idea has been tried before and it was a flop.
“We’ve worked with the Department of Defense and the VA Department in the past and both secretaries were in front of me in a committee saying, ‘We’re going to get this done.’ We spent three billion dollars on making it happen and nothing happened,” said Benishek.
He also believes the VA should study what works best at effective VA hospitals and push those standards and practices on the dysfunctional facilities.
“In my district, we have a good VA hospital director. He’s been working with us well, solves the problems that we bring to his attention. That should be going on all over the country,” he said.
Ultimately, he says real progress will require the government making this a top priority and that’s not happening right now. He says loud insistence on progress from the American people could make a huge difference.
“It’s really up to the American people to put enough pressure on the administration to make some real change in the VA,” said Benishek.
