Overriding President Barack Obama Sept. 23 veto of the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,” Congress passed the first true bipartisan legislation of Obama’s presidency. Since he signed Obamacare into law March 23, 2010, Barack has had a tough time with a Republican Congress. When he railroaded Obamacare through Congress in Dec. 24, 2009 without one Republican vote, Barack sealed his fate in Congress for the remainder of his term. When JASTA passed the Senate May 17 over Obama’s objections, White House spokesman Josh Earnest signaled Obama would veto the bill, despite knowing a veto override was likely. Considered a politically savvy president, there’s only one reason why Obama vetoed the bill, allowing victims of Sept. 11 to sue Saudi Arabia: Obama seeks massive cash contributions for his presidential library from Saudi Arabia.
Claiming he vetoed the bill because it would expose the U.S. to tit-for-tat lawsuits by foreign governments, Obama knew there was overwhelming support in Congress for the bill, including by his most ardent supporters like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Barack read the same numbers as everyone else: House approval 348-77, Senate approval 97-1. “If you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that’s a hard one for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do,” said Obama. Obama knew from the get-go the overwhelming support in Congress. Making more excuses about future lawsuits blows more smoke about the real reason Obama vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Knowing the strong support in Congress, you’d think Obama would have gladly signed the first bipartisan legislation of his presidency.
With less than four months left in his term, Obama’s been campaigning heartily for Democratic nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Both Obama and Hillary have strong ties to Saudi Arabia. Reports of the Clinton Foundation taking millions of dollars from the Saudis and other Gulf States has put Hillary under more scrutiny for her Mideast policy. As Secretary of State, and now as presidential candidate, Hillary supports the Saudi proxy war in Syria to topple the Shiite government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Like Obama, Hillary’s support of the Saudi proxy war pits the U.S. against Russia and Iran. Connecting the dots, it looks like Obama and Hillary have such strong financial ties to Saudi Arabia, they back the Saudis no matter what the consequences to U.S. national security. Driving U.S.-Russian relations to Cold War lows, it’s clear where Obama and Hillary stand.
Obama’s decision to veto the JASTA speaks volumes about his expectations after leaving office. With ambitious plans to raise $2 billion for his presidential library, Obama’s not willing to antagonize the Saudis. When you think about the overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill, there’s simply no other rational reason for not gladly backing the bill. What’s even more curious is that Hillary’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), abstained from voting despite the 97-1 vote in the U.S. Senate. Had Kaine voted to support the bill, it would have compromised Hillary’s strong financial ties to the Saudis. There’s no getting around the fact that the Clinton Foundations has taken upwards of $100 million from the Saudis and Gulf States. When you consider Hillary 100% backs the Saudi proxy war to topple al-Assad in Syria, it raises disturbing questions of how money influences U.S. foreign policy.
Obama’s Democratic colleagues showed no mercy voting overwhelming with their GOP colleagues to override his veto. “Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, eve if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts,” said Schumer, giving the rationale behind the bill. Obama knew the rationale as well as anyone. His excuse that it exposed the U.S. to future lawsuits was fig leaf for his need to placate the Saudis. At some point, elected officials with strong ties to the Saudis will have to come clean, including Hillary. Whatever Obama expects to get from the Saudis for his presidential library, it shouldn’t affect U.S. foreign policy. When you consider the strong U.S. backing for the Saudi proxy war in Syria, it all starts to make sense.
U.S. foreign policy shouldn’t be sold to the highest bidder, whether it’s donating to presidential libraries or charitable foundations. Barack’s Sept. 17 veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act speaks volumes about how cold cash influences presidential decisions. No foreign power should influence U.S. foreign policy by throwing cash at elected officials. Taking millions into the Clinton Foundations from the Saudis, Hillary must disclose the extent of her financial ties to the Kingdom and how it affects her foreign policy. “This bill was carefully negotiated over more than six years,” said Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.), reacting to the determined Saudi lobbying campaign to defeat the bill. When you consider Obama’s strong backing of the nearly six-year Saudi proxy war in Syria, it makes you question the consequences of poor presidential decision-making on U.S. national security.
