The best reason for rejecting the (Iran) agreement is to rebuke Obama’s long record of aggressive disdain for Congress — recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, rewriting and circumventing statutes, etc. Obama’s intellectual pedigree runs to Woodrow Wilson, the first presidential disparager of the separation of powers. Like Wilson, Obama ignores the constitutional etiquette of respecting even rivalrous institutions.–George Will
Perhaps rebuking President Obama is the best reason for disapproving the Iran agreement, but even the best reason is no reason. Evidently Will would put partisan posturing ahead of the public interest even regarding a vital matter of war and peace–that’s nonsense.
Will goes on to compare President Obama to President Wilson, but muddles the history. Wilson negotiated the Versailles Treaty which was his constitutional prerogative. The Senate rejected the Versailles Treaty, not because there was much to dislike in it, but rather to rebuke President Wilson. This set the stage for another world war, which is nothing to celebrate.
Will goes on to claim:
- The Iran agreement should be a treaty;
- It should not have been submitted first to the United Nations as a studied insult to Congress.
- Wilson said that rejecting the Versailles treaty would “break the heart of the world.”
- The Senate, no member of which had been invited to accompany Wilson to the Paris Peace Conference, proceeded to break his heart.
- Obama deserves a lesson in the cost of Wilsonian arrogance.
Wilson didn’t suffer much from rejection of the Versailles Treaty; he died shortly after that. It was the world that suffered.
Should the Senate reject the Iran agreement to “teach Obama a lesson.” What would be the value in that? If the result were a futile and costly escalation of warfare in the Middle East, would we be happy if only the Senate had shown President Obama that it was capable of spiteful stupidity?