Why has pretty much the entire American national leadership reacted with a pusillanimous stampede into stupidity over a routine appointment that should be a non-issue? Because moral bullying works, even when it makes the least sense. This is a decision that relies for its justification on pure guilt by association. Underlying this travesty is a familiar American weakness of long standing: craven unwillingness to accept accountability for American actions in the past.
Also the President was apparently intimidated by congressional demagogues passing a probably unconstitutional bill limiting the power granted solely to the president: that "he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers" (Art. II, sec. 3). Asked whether the president would sign that bill, press secretary Jay Carney danced around the legal question while confirming the official decision to demonize the professional diplomat:
"Let me say a couple of things. We have informed the United Nations and Iran that we will not issue a visa to Mr. Aboutalebi. We certainly share the intent of the bill passed by Congress, as we have already told the U.N. and Iran that we will not issue a visa.
"We'll review the legislation; we're doing that now. And we will work to address any issues related to its utility and constitutionality. But we share the intent of the bill. The bill expands upon a 1990 law for which President George H.W. Bush issued a signing statement expressing constitutional concerns. And, obviously, we will be looking at this issue as part of our review. But as to the intent, we share it. And I think we have made clear in previous statements and today in my statement that we won't be issuing a visa."
In other words the legislation is absurd but we're not about to stand up to Congress when they've got the Iran rage machine going. "We take our host country responsibilities very seriously," Carney said to the audience that knew he meant the opposite whenever it was expedient. Carney did not explain why the president thinks denying the visa is constitutional or legal or justified, or whether that's even what the president thinks about Iran. And of course no reporter asked. Who wants to be seen treating a designated scapegoat even-handedly?
This whole mishagas started with what looks now like it could have been an April Fool's joke that nobody got. On April 1, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (with six Republican co-sponsors) introduced a bill (S.2195) that would "deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national security interests."
In the House, Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn and 48 like-minded co-sponsors introduced a bill identical to the Senate version. In support of the bill, Lamborn said, "last week, we learned something shocking and appalling. The Iranian Government wants to appoint a terrorist as their Ambassador to the United Nations, a man who participated in the 1979 terrorist attack on our Embassy in Tehran. This is unconscionable and unacceptable."
There is no credible finding or other factual basis to support this hyperbole, which soon became conventional wisdom in Washington.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
