• US Sen. Graham threatens to cut funds to UN if Obama bypasses Congress on Iran sanctions
    38 replies, posted
[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/20/graham-threatens-funds-to-un-bypass-congress-on-iran-sanctions/[/url] [IMG]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGiFm3i07eQIotjjk41fzqjYo4JRiZkdxw2hAdPEXw6bCHpLPRPA[/IMG] [QUOTE]South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is throwing down the gauntlet, warning the White House he’ll move to cut funding to the United Nations if the administration turns to the international body to lift sanctions on Iran as part of a nuclear deal. Graham made the comments Thursday during an appearance on Fox News’ “On the Record With Greta Van Susteren.” Graham, a Republican, is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs. In that role, he says he can block U.S. funding for the United Nations -- $654 million is earmarked for 2015 alone. “Twenty-two percent of the funding for the United Nations comes from the American taxpayers, and I’m in charge of that account,” a defiant Graham told Fox News. He acknowledged he'd also need other lawmakers to sign onto any effort to suspend that funding. Graham is worried that the administration, should it strike a nuclear deal with Iran, might get the U.N. to lift sanctions without going through Congress to lift U.S. sanctions. Graham, who says the worst possible outcome would be for Iran to get a nuclear weapon, vowed: “I’m not going to allow the United Nations to be used as a way to get around the United States Congress for a deal that affects the very existence of Israel and our own national security.” When pushed on the issue, Graham said, “If they go to the U.N. Security Council, and the U.N. Security Council lifts all sanctions before we ever get a chance to look at this deal, absolutely I would suspend funding the United Nations, because I don't think your money should go to an organization that irresponsible.”[/QUOTE]
Did not realize America funded 22% of the UN's budget.
[QUOTE]I don't think your money should go to an organization that irresponsible.[/QUOTE] Congress has no room to talk here.
To be entirely fair, he's right to some degree. Whether you agree with the overall idea or not, this is something that should be decided on through the legislative branch. To try otherwise is just plain filthy.
Now now, Lindsey, he wouldn't need to bypass congress if your party wasn't stuck in the 1950s.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47363728]Did not realize America funded 22% of the UN's budget.[/QUOTE] It's literally in the article and quote both.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47363771]To be entirely fair, he's right to some degree. Whether you agree with the overall idea or not, this is something that should be decided on through the legislative branch. To try otherwise is just plain filthy.[/QUOTE] In a perfect world the legislative branch wouldn't be filled to the brim with AIPAC shills who put Israeli interests over American ones, I'd rather the POTUS give a middle finger to those shills.
[QUOTE=Lamar;47363903]In a perfect world the legislative branch wouldn't be filled to the brim with AIPAC shills who put Israeli interests over American ones, I'd rather the POTUS give a middle finger to those shills.[/QUOTE] Let's just toss out the rules of government altogether, then.
For fucks sake, does he even realize what that would mean to OTHER UN sponsors, this undermines the entire structure, say next year Russia has a beef with the UN, instead of the usual banter instead they cut their funding to force the UN to change its mind Undermining the UN for political gain in US politics is incredibly shortsighted and reckless
[QUOTE=Sableye;47363937]For fucks sake, does he even realize what that would mean to OTHER UN sponsors, this undermines the entire structure, say next year Russia has a beef with the UN, instead of the usual banter instead they cut their funding to force the UN to change its mind Undermining the UN for political gain in US politics is incredibly shortsighted and reckless[/QUOTE] Trying to "work around congress" is also incredibly shortsighted and reckless.
[QUOTE=ZombieWaffle;47363844]It's literally in the article and quote both.[/QUOTE] Might be how he learned it
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47363916]Let's just toss out the rules of government altogether, then.[/QUOTE] Obama isn't breaking any rules in his dealings with Iran. Over 90% of all foreign policy deals since WWII have been conducted via executive agreement rather than treaty. The Republican shitstorm exists purely to mislead the public into thinking the President is doing something illegal.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47364185]Obama isn't breaking any rules in his dealings with Iran. Over 90% of all foreign policy deals since WWII have been conducted via executive agreement rather than treaty. The Republican shitstorm exists purely to mislead the public into thinking the President is doing something illegal.[/QUOTE] Try reading the post I was responding to. I wasn't saying that about the article.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47363728]Did not realize America funded 22% of the UN's budget.[/QUOTE] The maximum amount allowed by the UN. Also this is treason.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47364185]Obama isn't breaking any rules in his dealings with Iran. Over 90% of all foreign policy deals since WWII have been conducted via executive agreement rather than treaty. The Republican shitstorm exists purely to mislead the public into thinking the President is doing something illegal.[/QUOTE] And neither were the Republicans when they told Iran that Obama's treaty might not hold any water when he leaves. But that didn't stop Obama and co. from throwing their own little fit when that happened.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47364250]The maximum amount allowed by the UN. Also this is treason.[/QUOTE] How so?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47364432]How so?[/QUOTE] how so what? if any particular country paid more than that, they would be able to extort the UN into doing whatever that country wanted... just like what the USA is doing now.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47363937]For fucks sake, does he even realize what that would mean to OTHER UN sponsors, this undermines the entire structure, say next year Russia has a beef with the UN, instead of the usual banter instead they cut their funding to force the UN to change its mind.[/QUOTE] Yeah if this works, it could be the first step to the collapse of the United Nations, and that's a worrying prospect.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47364502]how so what? if any particular country paid more than that, they would be able to extort the UN into doing whatever that country wanted... just like what the USA is doing now.[/QUOTE] The US isn't doing anything right now. It's merely stating that if Obama decides to use the U.N. as a political tool to bypass congress, then congress won't support the U.N. But I think he was asking how it was treason....
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47364088]Trying to "work around congress" is also incredibly shortsighted and reckless.[/QUOTE] Congress is full of people that want to burn the United Nations and government in general to the ground. I'm pretty okay with going around them.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47364638]Congress is full of people that want to burn the United Nations and government in general to the ground. I'm pretty okay with going around them.[/QUOTE] So democracy only works when it's people who share your views who get in? Gotcha. See, I'm not ok with anyone trying to do that. I don't give a fuck if it's a Democrat, Republican, Independent, a turtle, a pencil, or an alarm clock. Our government is designed the way it is for a reason. You don't get the ability to bypass the people the public has chosen to represent them.
[QUOTE=DuCT;47364257]And neither were the Republicans when they told Iran that Obama's treaty might not hold any water when he leaves. But that didn't stop Obama and co. from throwing their own little fit when that happened.[/QUOTE] It was debatable, but the time for action on that has passed. [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1455023&p=47292689&viewfull=1#post47292689]I wrote up a post last week explaining the Logan Act.[/url]
OBAMA IS A MOLEMAN FROM ZEBULON 5 IMPEACH HIM NOW!
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47363820]Now now, Lindsey, he wouldn't need to bypass congress if your party wasn't stuck in the 1950s.[/QUOTE] The US funded nuclear reactors in Iran in the 50's
[QUOTE=jaredop;47364936]The US funded nuclear reactors in Iran in the 50's[/QUOTE] The Republicans were also a hell of a lot less what-ever-they-are-now-y back then.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;47364185]Obama isn't breaking any rules in his dealings with Iran. [/QUOTE] And Republicans aren't breaking any rules if they cut funding to the UN. What's your point? Whether it's technically legal or not, going to the UN to sidestep one of our branches of government is a really shitty thing for the President to do. If a Republican president decided he wanted to conduct military action against Iran but knew Congress wouldn't support it, so rather than go through Congress to seek authorization for use of force, he went to the UN Security Council to request military action, this forum would be screaming bloody murder about the unlawful subversion of democracy and our system of checks and balances. It's not okay just because it's Obama doing it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47365089]And Republicans aren't breaking any rules if they cut funding to the UN. What's your point? Whether it's technically legal or not, going to the UN to sidestep one of our branches of government is a really shitty thing for the President to do. If a Republican president decided he wanted to conduct military action against Iran but knew Congress wouldn't support it, so rather than go through Congress to seek authorization for use of force, he went to the UN Security Council to request military action, this forum would be screaming bloody murder about the unlawful subversion of democracy and our system of checks and balances. It's not okay just because it's Obama doing it.[/QUOTE] The responsibility of negotiating with foreign powers is the sole responsibility of the President. In order to avoid bullshit like this, we place diplomatic negotiating authority solely in the hands of the president. Using legislation to bypass this authority is a violation of the separation of powers and the logan act. This is illegal and undermines the entire system.
If we stopped funding the UN, wouldn't we lose Veto rights?
There are three sets of Iran sanctions, ones from the US, EU and UNSC. The UNSC isn't side stepping US or EU sanctions, and Obama already has powers to eliminate portions of the US sanctions, without congressional approval. What Lindsey Graham is whining over is that if the UNSC passed a resolution removing their own nuclear sanctions they become legally binding. Something that an Iran deal currently isn't, which is why Republicans sent that treasonous letter reiterating that very point about "Obummer wont be here but we will lmao and we'll repeal". Effectively this maneuver neuters the ability of a potential Republican president and congress from reneging on a deal with Iran in the future. Nothing is really "filthy" about this, it's just smart political brinksmanship on the part of the Obama administration. Also what's sleazier, undermining your own countries foreign policy to a) spite a sitting president b) appease a foreign leader and his lobby (Netenyahu). Or trying to broker a normalization of relations with a country of 80 million, stop a potential war and prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms? Sorry but Lindsey Graham is a war mongering cunt, if anyone in this situation is a child it's him and his party. Is Obama perfect? No, absolutely not, but what else is he supposed to do? Republicans are not rational actors and they have shown time and again to not act in good faith.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47365089]And Republicans aren't breaking any rules if they cut funding to the UN. What's your point?[/QUOTE] My point was present in the original post- you snipped it out when you quoted me. I was absolutely clear about the scope of my statement so don't expect me to follow you down your "if a Republican did it" tangent. It's not my responsibility to defend the forum's liberal bias. The article reiterated the Republicans' position that Obama's use of executive powers to conduct foreign policy unilaterally is unethical, despite being legal. Monkah agreed, adding that not allowing Congress to vote on the deal would be "filthy." Lamar disagreed, claiming that congress was full of "shills" who couldn't be trusted with the matter. Scorpious then replied sarcastically to Lamar, "Let's just toss out the rules of government altogether, then," implying that if a president were to use his powers to circumvent a biased congress on a foreign policy matter, that it would be violating unspecified rules (illegal.) My post wasn't made in agreement with Lamar or any of the other opinions in the above paragraph, it was a direct response to a factually dubious implication. I then made my own point, that the Republican Party's rhetoric is likely to mislead others into making the same incorrect assumption.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.