-->
It's a shame that on an Easter and Passover weekend we
cannot speak about the topics from today's program in a more genial tone, but
the guests and the subjects did not lend themselves at all well to any sort of
conciliatory language.
Here’s the fact:
There is a deal in place.
It is certainly one that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
is not happy with as he unequivocally and repeatedly stated in his interview
with Chuck Todd today that Iran is
the preeminent terrorist state of our time. Mr. Netanyahu, as we know, would
like to see a deal that closes Iran's nuclear facilities, entirely rolling back
their nuclear program.
But here’s another fact, is that's unrealistic. There is no
way that is going to happen as Iran’s program is too far along, so much so that
they were only a few months away from total nuclear weapon capability. Mr. Netanyahu said that he wants a
diplomatic deal, but one that is frankly unrealistic. His only recourse to accomplish what he
sees is a good deal would be to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities? And if indeed that is the course of
action, extrapolating out that plan, it would not be Israel that does the
bombing, but the United States through authorization of a Republican Congress
that frankly Mr. Netanyahu has in his vest pocket. The deal pushes Iran’s capability back to a year’s time.
At the top of the program Mr. Todd summarized reactions on
both sides: the hardliners in Iran felt that their Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, gave away too much and elected
officials critical of the Obama administration in the United States said that
the United States did not get enough concessions, so what we can surmise is
that both sides felt some pain.
The other consideration, a big one, is that there were five other
countries involved in negotiations. And this is key for the United States, in
negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. It does the United States well to be
partnered with Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia and China. However, if
the U.S. Republican-controlled Congress does not go along with this deal –
doesn’t ratify it – essentially killing it then we've lost some key allies and
significant partners, not only on this deal but in others where we'll need
their cooperation. They will know that the president doesn’t have the ability
to negotiate on behalf of the country, rendering the United States an
unreliable partner that other countries will cease to seek out.
Given that Iran was only months away from constituting a
nuclear weapon, this was a critical time and a deal had to be struck or the United States would have to be willing to
go to war with Iran, and it would certainly go it alone, with only Israel as a
partner, as none of those other five countries would support a war against
Iran. Not to mention that, frankly, the American people simply don't want it.
Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT), who called the deal
‘remarkable,’ provided minor consolation for the deal, when he explained that
other sanctions related to other issues at hand would remain in place. Only sanctions as they are related to
Iran's nuclear capability would eventually be lifted. Mr. Murphy also offered the opinion that perhaps if the
United States can show it can negotiate with Iran on this issue; perhaps it
could negotiate with them on others. That’s a overly optimistic in our opinion.
When it comes right down to it the opinion of this column is
one of pragmatism. Given the facts, as they are now, the question at hand is
what the U.S. Congress should do now? As we’ve said, if Congress nixes this
deal, which they probably will, it puts the United States in a very difficult
diplomatic spot.
[Though were not really ready to comment on presidential
politics at the moment, if in 2016 a Democrat is elected president and
Republican Congress is still in control; will this sort of diplomatic negating
tactic stay in place, essentially rendering the United States’ ability to
negotiate with other countries completely null and void because of its
unpredictability? Point being, is that this could set of very bad precedent
that would only get worse moving forward.
And unfortunately speaking of the concept of ‘things-can-only-get-worse’
in the of presidential politics, we think of governors running for president in
terms of how they run their states. So when we consider Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal: we ask ourselves: do we want to live Mr. Jindal’s Louisiana? The
answer is clearly ‘no.’]
The above supplemental commentary aside, the essential
question that Mr. Jindal was on today’s program to answer was in consideration
of the validity of these religious liberty laws that have come through Indiana
and Arkansas in the past week.
The first amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In his defense of religious liberty laws, Mr. Jindal quoted
referred to the founding fathers and the First Amendment, what is disturbing is
that he would have you believe an incorrect reading of the first sentence of
the first amendment. (And frankly,
Cardinal Dolan in his interview, was also incorrectly spoke about what the
first amendment means.) In the first sentence, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
What that means is Congress should make no laws with regard to religion, and
making a religious liberty law is making law about ‘religion,’ which Congress
shouldn’t do under any circumstance. The invocation of liberty is open to
interpretation, but it's a non-issue regardless because the First Amendment it
says no law should be made with respect to religion. That is most rudimentary answer
as to why it is unconstitutional.
What these religious liberty laws were designed to do in a
practical sense is protects businesses if they wanted to refuse service to a
gay couple on the grounds that it goes against the religious values of the
business owner. For example, if there is only one florist in town and a gay
couple wants to get married – in that
town in a state where same-sex marriage is legal - and they go to that
florist to get flowers for the wedding. The florist says, “I don't believe in that kind of marriage
for religious reasons, so I am not delivering the flowers,” that business’s
discrimination is protected under the law. It’s protects the business’s right to discriminate based on
sexual orientation. Again -
Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion.
Not to mention that throughout the entire interview, Governor
Jindal spoke only in terms of Christians.
He didn’t speak at all in terms of all religions, just the Christian
religion, which was sad. (And it didn't go unnoticed that
Cardinal Dolan only referred to Christians and Jews as practicing religious
peacefulness.) We understand and have sympathy for Cardinal Dolan's point of
view because he is a cardinal in the Catholic Church, catering to Catholics! However
with respect to Gov. Jindal, he signed up for PUBLIC office – public meaning
everyone without respect to religion, not the office of the Christian public only.
Panel:
Matt
Bai, Yahoo News; Amy
Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene
Cooper, The New York Times; Perry
Bacon, NBC News
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment