Breaking News -- United States
Emboldened Obama embraces presidential power
by Andrew Beatty
Washington (AFP) - Barack Obama is expected to issue the third and most significant veto of his presidency Tuesday, embracing raw executive power in the twilight of his administration.
"This is even better than the veto pen," said a steely Obama, gripping a silvery hockey stick gifted to him in the midst of another fight with Republicans.
Combative and confident, it is just the sort of defiant tone that Obama has adopted since Republicans seized control of both houses of Congress.
Since last November, Obama has threatened to veto more than a dozen Republican-backed bills -- from tougher sanctions on Iran to rules undercutting his hallmark healthcare reforms.
On Tuesday he is likely to make good on another veto promise, rejecting a bill pushing for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada to the United States.
While flexing his veto power Obama has also embraced the use of controversial executive orders, which bypass hostile legislators to make law by decree.
In one of over 200 orders so far, Obama protected five million illegal immigrants from deportation, leading to a fierce legal challenge from Republicans.
There is a "clear political imperative" for Obama's more muscular use of presidential power, said Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University professor.
"The opposition is strong, time is limited and you can't do much pro-actively.
"It's important for Democrats not to end the last two years (of Obama's term) with Republicans not only controlling Congress, but doing a lot."
- No Franklin Roosevelt -
Yet despite the tough talk, Obama is a relative neophyte when it comes to the ultimate expressions of presidential political power.
Before Keystone, the 44th commander-in-chief used his veto power only twice in six years, to reject rules on notarizations and a defense funding resolution that had become obsolete.
That is fewer vetoes than any president since James Garfield, who was in office in 1881 for 200 days -- close to half of them spent (unsuccessfully) trying to recover from an assassin's bullet.
According to Senate records, you have to go back two centuries -- to the age of the Seminole wars, the first Mississippi steam boats and the presidency of founding father James Monroe -- to find a two-term president who has issued fewer vetoes.
At the same time, Obama has averaged around 33 executive orders a year, the lowest rate since Grover Cleveland's first term ended in 1889, according to the American Presidency Project.
"I think there is genuine hesitance about overreaching," said Zelizer, pointing to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, when he repeatedly voiced concerns about George W. Bush's use of executive power.
"He also ultimately believed that he would be able to get the legislative process moving. It took him a long time to realize that is not the case."
Obama's low veto tally could also be a sign of his political success.
For most of Obama's time in the Oval Office, Democrats had a strangle hold on Congress.
"In Obama's first two years in office, his party had big majorities in the House and Senate," said Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
"Given how ideologically similar Obama and congressional Democrats are, Congress generally wasn't going to pass something through both houses that was not also supported by the president."
Even until last November Obama had the buffer of a Democrat-controlled Senate, which prevented Republican-backed bills from landing on the Resolute desk.
Minority lawmakers' willingness to use procedural rules to stall legislation may also have helped Obama avoid executive action, according to Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution.
"I suspect that the minority's increased willingness to filibuster majority party priorities in the Senate also limits the frequency of veto bait sent up to the White House," she said.
With Republicans now in control of both houses, Obama could yet emulate Bush, who vetoed 11 bills in his last two years following the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006.
But even if Obama embarks on a spree of orders and vetoes, he cannot come close to Franklin Roosevelt, a fellow Democrat, who used his veto 635 times and issued over 3,700 executive orders.
Obama-Netanyahu Ties Hit Low as U.S.-Israel Alliance Endures
by Jonathan FerzigerTerry Atlas
(Bloomberg) -- When he stands before Congress next week, Benjamin Netanyahu will be betting that warning against a “dangerous” nuclear deal with Iran will be worth the toll it takes on his difficult relationship with President Barack Obama.
In doing so, the Israeli prime minister risks tossing U.S.- Israel ties into the maelstrom of Washington partisanship after decades in which the Jewish state has enjoyed broad support for what is often called an “enduring partnership.”
The tensions over how to deal with Iran, which both sides have done little to mask, have brought comparisons to a low point in relations in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush tussled with Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir over Israeli settlement construction.
Through it all, the U.S. remains Israel’s biggest trading partner and closest defense ally, providing $3.1 billion in annual military assistance. Officials from both nations agree that the level of U.S.-Israel security cooperation, including intelligence-sharing, is unprecedented. In business, two-way trade in goods between the nations has grown to $38.1 billion in 2014 from $28.3 billion in 2009, Obama’s first year in office, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
“Institutionally, the relationship is stronger than it’s ever been,” said Prem Kumar, who was the White House National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa before joining the consulting firm Albright Stonebridge Group earlier this year.
“Politically, there have been some difficulties, but they’re not insurmountable,” he said.
Last week, Netanyahu’s National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen discussed Iran and other issues with his White House counterpart, Susan Rice. Those talks went ahead even as administration officials said the U.S. is withholding details about the Iran negotiations because Israeli officials have leaked misleading information to undermine a deal.
Politically, it’s a different matter. The White House has made no secret of its displeasure with Netanyahu’s scheduled March 3 address to Congress at the invitation of Republican House Speaker John Boehner, and a number of Democrats plan to boycott it in a rare show of partisan discord on a matter important to Israel and its American supporters.
“The U.S.-Israel relationship has always been characterized, despite any ups and downs over policy disagreements, as certainly bipartisan,” David Makovsky, a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said in an interview. “The question -- which it may be too soon to answer -- is whether the friction over this will bring that into question in a way that is hasn’t been brought into question” in the past.
Disagreement over how to thwart what both Obama and Netanyahu regard as Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions has put the two leaders on a collision course. This is coming to a head with the possibility of a negotiated deal between Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., that fails to meet what Netanyahu says are Israel’s security requirements.
Plotting his course to Capitol Hill, Netanyahu had to get over the notion that he shouldn’t team up with Republicans against Obama’s efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, according to his advisers.
He’s said the emerging terms would enable Iran to retain a “break-out” capability to produce nuclear weapons before the U.S. or Israel could prevent it. Netanyahu, addressing a group of U.S. Jewish leaders in Jerusalem last week, said he has a “sacred duty” to make Israel’s case to Congress.
“The prime minister decided, as I understand it, that to prevent this bad agreement from being signed and implemented is more important than the personal relations with the president, and that’s why he’s going to Congress to give the speech,” said Yaakov Amidror, Netanyahu’s former national security adviser.
Amidror, now a senior fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv, said signing an agreement with Iran would amount to dismissing Israel’s most vital security requirements and leave “a scratch on the relations” between the two allies.
“When there was a need, the Americans were not there,” he said.
One source of tension for Obama is that his support for measures to strengthen Israel’s security haven’t bought him much in return from Netanyahu on the two big strategic issues they jointly face: Iran and the future of the Palestinians.
An earlier sign of that was Netanyahu’s rejection of a 2010 U.S. offer of a weapons deal including Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 Joint Strike Fighters if Netanyahu would extend for 90 days a partial settlement freeze to encourage peace talks with the Palestinians.
When Netanyahu comes to Washington, Obama has ruled out granting him a White House visit, which has capped virtually all of his trips to the U.S. as prime minister. Obama said it wouldn’t be appropriate given Israeli elections on March 17.
Isaac Herzog, the parliamentary opposition chief whose Zionist Union ticket narrowly leads Netanyahu’s Likud party in polls, said on Tuesday he rejected an offer to join the prime minister in Washington and present a united front on Iran.
“I know how to make myself heard in a clear, influential way from here and not there,” he said at a Jerusalem news conference.
Along with the Netanyahu speech and the Israeli elections, a third event next month is an end-of-month deadline for reaching a framework political deal in the Iran negotiations.
“Those are three big events that I think could very much affect the trajectory of the U.S.-Israel relationship going forward,” said Makovsky.
A Gallup Poll released Monday found a high level of American public support for Israel, with seven of ten people having a broadly favorable view. Gallup said the dispute between the two leaders did seem to have had an impact: The percentage of U.S. Democrats viewing Israel favorably fell to 60 percent from 74 percent a year ago. The telephone poll conducted Feb. 8-11 has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Abraham Foxman, a Jewish leader who is national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said he’s “a lot concerned” that controversy over the Netanyahu speech distracts from the important debate over Iran and undercuts the long-standing bipartisan character of American support for Israel.
Foxman has called for Netanyahu to cancel the congressional speech, particularly considering that he can speak in less controversial venues, including a scheduled address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israel lobbying group. It’s important to reinforce bipartisanship, particularly to address an issue as important as Iran, Foxman said in an interview.
Changing the Subject
“This became politicized, and the issue in the media was not the Iran issue, but all of a sudden how many Democrats will come, which Democrats will boycott, will they be applauding,” he said. “That was the unintended consequence, totally distracting, and that will undermine the purpose” of Netanyahu’s address.
Given the importance of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-weapons power, “it’s critical that we have a bipartisan embrace,” he said. “Now this situation looks far from the bipartisan embrace.”
Making the U.S.-Israel relationship a partisan issue “could have lasting consequences,” two senior Senate Democrats wrote Netanyahu in a letter Monday. The partisan way the speech was arranged -- without consultation with the White House or congressional Democratic leaders -- sacrificed “deep and well-established cooperation on Israel for short-term partisan points,” Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Dianne Feinstein of California said.
Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, and Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, invited Netanyahu to a private meeting with Senate Democrats “to maintain dialogue with both political parties in Congress.”
Describing Netanyahu’s trip to Washington as a “political stunt,” Danny Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. from 2002 to 2006, said the speech will do nothing to change the minds of U.S. lawmakers on Iran.
“While he’s the one who shows Israelis he’s standing up to the president of the United States, I think in the long run it’s a mistake,” Ayalon said. “Our fight is not with Obama, it’s with Iran.”
Zalman Shoval, another former Israeli ambassador to Washington who served under both Netanyahu and Shamir, said the two leaders will find a way to iron out their problems.
“There’s always a way in good diplomacy, even on very controversial things, even if you can’t stand each other,” he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Ferziger in Tel Aviv at firstname.lastname@example.org; Terry Atlas in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: John Walcott at firstname.lastname@example.org Larry Liebert
Obama: 'Consequences' for ICE Officials Who Don't Follow Executive Amnesty
by Daniel Halper
President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC.
According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts.
“Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be,” Obama said, according to a partial transcript provided by the pool reporter.
“Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight.. but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress. The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem.”
“If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”
UPDATE: Here are the remarks, via a transcript provided by the White House:
MR. DIAZ-BALART: But what are the consequences? Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences
THE PRESIDENT: José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. So I can’t speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally.
In the U.S. military, when you get an order, you’re expected to follow it. It doesn’t mean that everybody follows the order. If they don’t, they’ve got a problem. And the same is going to be true with respect to the policies that we’re putting forward.
|(Disclaimer) What to Look For in World Events: Audio & Text Video|