Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto

[boutons_deux]

On Wednesday, Congress was so determined to pass a law to sue Saudi Arabia that it overrode President Barack Obama’s veto (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-obama-veto-override-911_us_57ec0dd9e4b0c2407cdb441c?wr0jzeijgwuxzjjor) .

But possible (http://www.wsj.com/articles/jasta-la-vista-baby-1475172107) backlash against America (http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Override-of-9-11-bill-veto-risks-backlash-outside-US) had top Republican leaders looking for someone else to blame Thursday.

And they appear to have settled on Obama.

The White House called the override the “single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done” in decades.

Even 28 lawmakers who had just helped to pass the first override of Obama’s presidency sent a letter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-saudi-arabia-bill-doubts_us_57ed6491e4b024a52d2db13d) to their own leaders Thursday saying maybe there should be changes.

So Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) leveled at least partial blame on Obama.

“That was a good example, it seems to me, of a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation,”

( :lol Bitch O'Connell's from KY, so it looks like the illiterate asshole really does have KY jelly for brains. )

McConnell told reporters before Congress got out of town until after the elections.

“By the time everybody seemed to focus on some potential consequences of it, members had already basically taken a position.” :lol
“I wish the president —

I hate to blame everything on him, and I don’t :lol

— but it would have been helpful had he, uh, we had a discussion about this much earlier than last week.”


Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), a sponsor of bill, was harsher on Wednesday, while his colleagues were working up their letter (http://www.chattanoogan.com/2016/9/28/332883/Senators-Release-Bipartisan-Letter-On.aspx) expressing doubts.

“What’s so remarkable to me is the detachment of this White House from anything to do with the legislative process,” Cornyn told reporters. “They were basically missing in action during this whole process.”

Before criticism started blowing up around the world over JASTA,

Republicans accused Obama of doing too much to kill the bill they are now worried about. :lol

And Cornyn in particular was angry about it. He said so in April, on the Senate floor, just before Obama went to meet with the Saudis.

“Unfortunately, the administration has worked to undercut progress of this legislation at every turn,” Cornyn said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAEDt2MBVfQ&feature=youtu.be). :lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-now-blaming-obama-for-embarrassing-override-of-his-veto_us_57edacd1e4b082aad9ba8595?section=&&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Morning%20Email%20093016&utm_content=The%20Morning%20Email%20093016+CID_973 3a6c877922fe2046ebc4e81e49dc6&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Michael%20McAuliff%20HuffPost

Repug Congress is as fucked up, hypocritical as Trash.

So the Repugs voted for this JASTA crap without reading the bill and without thinking through consequences, and they are blaming their shit on Obama.

I have NO DOUBT that the Repugs all voted for JASTA simply because Obama was against it.

[pgardn]

So what was the vote count?

[DarrinS]

So, no Democrats voted to override him, right?

[ducks]

So what was the vote count?

97-1 senate
house 348-77

[UNT Eagles 2016]

It was a rare perfect storm that caused such a bipartisan landslide.


The Democrats are strongly pro-civil lawsuit, and the Republicans are strongly anti-Muslim. Very few other combined factors could have caused such a remarkable coalition.

[DMX7]

This is one of the worst examples of political optics overriding rational thought in decades. Both parties are to blame... but no one wanted to be the person who voted against the 9/11 victims even though a simple cost-benefit analysis shows how horrible of a thing they just did to our country. We would have been better off just paying the victims whatever they wanted from Saudi Arabia (assuming there is even an effective case against SA).

[UNT Eagles 2016]

This is one of the worst examples of political optics overriding rational thought in decades. Both parties are to blame... but no one wanted to be the person who voted against the 9/11 victims even though a simple cost-benefit analysis shows how horrible of a thing they just did to our country. We would have been better off just paying them whatever they wanted from Saudi Arabia (assuming there is even an effective case against them).

Not to mention it's going to fck gas prices.

[Spurminator]

So, no Democrats voted to override him, right?

That's one thing. Turning around after you voted to override the veto and saying Obama (even though he VETOED THE BILL) didn't educate you enough about the risks is an absolute joke that even you should be able to put your pom poms down to admit.

[clambake]

Not to mention it's going to fck gas prices.

how

[DMX7]

That's one thing. Turning around after you voted to override the veto and saying Obama (even though he VETOED THE BILL) didn't educate you enough about the risks is an absolute joke that even you should be able to put your pom poms down to admit.

Co-signed. This is especially true when you consider how rarely he has used the veto.

[Chucho]

LOL, it's a nothing law. You can sue Saudi Arabia ALL day, who is going to make them pay? Who is going to enforce American law decisions in Saudi Arabia? Same with the inverse. Each country will laugh at these "lawsuits" and it won't change anything. It wont open a "can of worms" like the fear-mongering propaganda will make you believe.

All it is is Obama pandering to his customers. Dude wants to still be able to sell them billions of dollars in weapons once Hitlery wins her rigged election. It's really, really a non-issue.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

LOL, it's a nothing law. You can sue Saudi Arabia ALL day, who is going to make them pay? Who is going to enforce American law decisions in Saudi Arabia? Same with the inverse. Each country will laugh at these "lawsuits" and it won't change anything. It wont open a "can of worms" like the fear-mongering propaganda will make you believe.

All it is is Obama pandering to his customers. Dude wants to still be able to sell them billions of dollars in weapons once Hitlery wins her rigged election. It's really, really a non-issue.
Absolutely no one. Al-Shari'a is the law of the land in Wahhabi Saudistan. They laugh and mock al-boko kafireen of the West. They praise Allah for the fall of the towers. Nothing to see.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

how

Oil capital of the world, hello?

[FromWayDowntown]

That's one thing. Turning around after you voted to override the veto and saying Obama (even though he VETOED THE BILL) didn't educate you enough about the risks is an absolute joke that even you should be able to put your pom poms down to admit.

Their's is a particularly ridiculous position because when President Obama vetoed the bill, he offered an extensive explanation for his veto and identified the specific risks that Congresspeople are now saying they hadn't considered before overriding the veto:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/23/veto-message-president-s2040

[clambake]

Oil capital of the world, hello?

you don't know what you are talking about.

how will that "fck gas prices?"

[UNT Eagles 2016]

you don't know what you are talking about.

how will that "fck gas prices?"

they pay billions in lawsuits = crude Saudi oil goes up

[clambake]

they pay billions in lawsuits = crude Saudi oil goes up

thats not how it works.

[pgardn]

97-1 senate
house 348-77

So Boots?

Harry Reid, who is not running again, is the 1 vote.
Whats the deal?

[tenbeersbold]

For the life of me I can't figure out why we haven't just taken over Saudi Arabia, UAE etc.Not many people to living there to fight us and we need what they have in the ground and offshore so fuck it,why not?
Take care of the locals and give all their women the pill cause MENA types overpopulating the world is already the real problem of our times.
Watching the EU govts afraid to defend their borders let's me know damn sure they ain't gonna be the ones to make any hard decisions
Look at any country that's taken in a few million MENA refugees,fubared...Lebanon etc.Hell Lebanon won't even take any more Syrian refugees.
Climate and overpopulation is gonna fuck it up if not handled properly

[TeyshaBlue]

they pay billions in lawsuits = crude Saudi oil goes up
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/IMG_63605335614356_zpsbrrawmgv.jpeg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/IMG_63605335614356_zpsbrrawmgv.jpeg.html)

[Splits]

they pay billions in lawsuits = crude Saudi oil goes up

:lmao did you go to UNT or TrumpU?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

:lmao did you go to UNT or TrumpU?

Why are you defending Congress here? POTUS was absolutely in the right in this circumstance.

[Warlord23]

Before Congress overrode Obama's veto:

Unfortunately, the administration has worked to undercut progress of this legislation at every turn

After Congress overrode Obama's veto:

What’s so remarkable to me is the detachment of this White House from anything to do with the legislative process. They were basically missing in action during this whole process.

Not that it matters. As long as you have an (R) after your name, Texas will vote for you.

[boutons_deux]

I heard on NPR that in fact, the fine print doesn't strip SA of sovereign immunity, and a couple of other items that significantly weaken this bill.

[pgardn]

Why are you defending Congress here? POTUS was absolutely in the right in this circumstance.

Explain.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Explain.
For one thing, suing maximum amount of money over injury and damages is a good thing, but suing for death is plain stupid -- no amount of money is going to bring the dead person back alive or healthy or wealthy. In some cases, I can see suing for the cost of fees associated with dealing with a dead relative, but they aren't that expensive. A funeral is optional, and the family members already have the estate of the dead relative to pay for that and much more. Suing over death is stupid -- it just makes dead people's relatives rich as if some "compensatory award" for the death of their relative. Absolutely retarded.

For a second thing, suing one of our largest trading partners can't be good for our economy and overall relations with Saudi, and in addition they are one of the most stable nations left in the most volatile part of the world with a family of monarchs that have traditionally been capitalistic and open to Western relations while putting their religious implications aside. The human rights issue in Saudi is another matter, but that goes for most of the Middle East. While terror attacks such as 9/11 and jihadi groups have certainly been funded by tycoons with ties to Saudi (every Hajji Sunni Muslim in the world has "ties" there, technically) there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Saudi government is in any way responsible for such evil.

[Winehole23]

That's one thing. Turning around after you voted to override the veto and saying Obama (even though he VETOED THE BILL) didn't educate you enough about the risks is an absolute joke that even you should be able to put your pom poms down to admit.Darrin never puts down the pom poms, and he never speaks ill of Republicans.

[ElNono]

For one thing, suing maximum amount of money over injury and damages is a good thing, but suing for death is plain stupid -- no amount of money is going to bring the dead person back alive or healthy or wealthy. In some cases, I can see suing for the cost of fees associated with dealing with a dead relative, but they aren't that expensive. A funeral is optional, and the family members already have the estate of the dead relative to pay for that and much more. Suing over death is stupid -- it just makes dead people's relatives rich as if some "compensatory award" for the death of their relative. Absolutely retarded.

For a second thing, suing one of our largest trading partners can't be good for our economy and overall relations with Saudi, and in addition they are one of the most stable nations left in the most volatile part of the world with a family of monarchs that have traditionally been capitalistic and open to Western relations while putting their religious implications aside. The human rights issue in Saudi is another matter, but that goes for most of the Middle East. While terror attacks such as 9/11 and jihadi groups have certainly been funded by tycoons with ties to Saudi (every Hajji Sunni Muslim in the world has "ties" there, technically) there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Saudi government is in any way responsible for such evil.

Actually, the major issue has nothing to do with that. It has to do with reciprocity agreements, where the US grants immunity to certain sovereign states in order for those states to grant the US immunity. This works out such that if another country asks the US for military or humanitarian aid, and the US accidentally (or not) causes certain deaths or damages, they're immune from lawsuits. The only way the US can get that kind of agreements is if there's reciprocity.

Now, some people will say those agreements are bad and dangerous, and that's certainly a valid opinion on it's own merits, but then when the US gets sued on an international court, peeps can't just pump a fist and claim "we're 'Murica, we dun get orders from nobody"...