this about congressional involvement. we are committed to finding a mechanism for appropriate congressional involvement and oversight. my hope is, is that we can find something that allows congress to express itself but does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives, and ensures that if in fact we get a good deal that we can go ahead and implement. this afternoon, the white house gave this reaction to the bill sponsored by senator corker that gives 60 days to consider the bill. you know, in this fashion, we have a pretty strong disagreement, because in the mind of the president, it could potentially interfere with the ongoing negotiations that are slated to continue through june. it also could interfere with the
the senate, the president would have to presumably veto it. but it just establishes the bill. then congress would have to disapprove any agreement if they were going to stop it. so you could have a substantial number of democrats to line up in congress and say congress should have this power, then when faced with the actual terms of the agreement, they might not choose to exercise that option. corker says he believes this strengthens the president s hand. it allows the president to say, gee, i can t offer that up because my congress will not agree to it. i don t know if that s correct analysis of it, but it does demonstrate the fact that mere passage of the corker deal does not mean the death of an iran deal. looking at chuck schumer s role in particular, since he is the leader in waiting now of the democrats in the senate, very powerful position. he s in a very influential position with his caucus now. at that second stage, is it
that the american public does get behind the idea that we d rather negotiate a deal even an imperfect deal than blow things up and possibly wind up on a course for war. let s listen to something there are people already at that position. we have to be clear about that. that s exactly where the american people are now. it s congress not reflecting that american opinion. and i think this that context we re going to see a situation where members of congress are going to be spending the next week or two in their district hearing from people saying wait a main. why minute. why isare you considering this? the administration like every administration passes or decides on international agreements all the time that don t require senatial approval. and this is one of them. they re not going to have the right under the constitution to
saying to the pollsters, 59% are saying we want diplomacy rather than the threat of war. 70% of liberals and so-called moderates, and the republicans and the conservatives are split 50/50 on it. so even the republicans are not even close to the kind of real warmongering we re hearing from the leadership of their party in the congress. so i think i don t think it s fair to say they re warmongering. if you look at someone like lindsey graham, he s said look, we re going to let this process play out until june. i think somebody else may have got and better deal, but there were avenues to be much more aggressive than the opposition has been, by for instance pushing the corker bill and imposing sanctions now, and i don t think that s happened. i don t think it s fair to say this is a head long rush to war. i don t think this is a rush to war in that this is what they re claiming to choose. i m saying there is an objective reality that those who are
president s efforts so far? i think that it s crucially important, lawrence. if we look at what s going on beyond the posturing of congress, beyond the claiming that congress must be involved et cetera, et cetera. what we re really dealing with here is the reality that if those people want to oppose this deal, this is the deal they can get. if they want to oppose it, what they re supporting is the likely hood of war. that s really the choice here. and whether this is about schumer posturing for one position or another or corker trying to make this a partisan issue, the bottom line is they are choosing war over diplomacy. and it s an outrage, because among other things it doesn t come close to matching where public opinion is. congress people say that they need to be involved because the american people should be involved. and yet, the american people are saying to the pollsters, 59% are saying we want diplomacy rather than the threat of war. 70% of liberals and so-called