Monday, July 20, 2015
Our hostages in Iran are more important than President Obama's feelings
The gist of President Obama’s press conference on
Wednesday was that he’s proud of his Iran agreement. And he may well be
right that it's a good deal. Not being a nuclear physicist, I don't have
any frame of reference to judge whether it blocks Iran's path to the
bomb. And, frankly, neither does the chorus of those with knee-jerk
reactions. Personally, I look forward to hearing from experts and hope
there can be a substantive, mature discussion in the Congress.
Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is essential, and I applaud the president’s efforts to pursue that goal diplomatically rather than militarily. He's right that it’s naive to think Iran was poised to capitulate completely, and he's right that solving every issue in one agreement is not feasible. And while the president even resorted to posing questions to himself that he thought reporters should have, he wasn't likely to address Amir Hekmati or the other three Americans held hostage or missing in Iran.
So Major Garrett had to. He pointed out one of those “concerns with regard to Iran”: that the Islamic Republic has unlawfully taken three Americans hostage (with one more missing and thought to be held by persons unknown at the behest of the regime in Tehran), and that Iran has used them as bargaining chips in an attempt to exact concessions.
Garrett asked the president why he was "content" to leave the issue of the hostages outstanding. I might have worded the questions slightly differently, but that doesn't mean Major was wrong to ask his question his way.
But I can tell you that the president hasn’t met with all their families, in fact, I’ve begged him on TV to meet with the family of former Marine Amir Hekmati or at least say his name out loud.
I’ve grown close to the family over the past several months, and I’ve asked the President to visit them before Amir’s father, Ali Hekmati, dies of cancer, so that he can hear personally how much his son’s service means to his commander in chief.
I understand that the president is busy even on a good day and that scheduling a presidential visit is challenging. But it's been nearly four years. That said, I do commend Vice President Biden for meeting with Amir’s sister and her husband at length recently.
What’s a bigger deal to me than a visit, a bigger deal than the fact that the hostages weren't released immediately as a result of this deal (which I think was an unreasonable expectation), is that the president didn’t even mention the four Americans until Garrett brought them up. Granted, he’s stated his commitment to their freedom in the past, but I’ve yet to hear a plan from his administration for securing their release.
“One thing at a time,” you could argue. And that’s fair. It’s difficult and delicate work to win the release of any prisoner unjustly imprisoned abroad, especially in a rogue nation like Iran.
I know this because I’ve been working for the past 8 months advocating for Amir’s release. I’ve been on the ground with his family, most recently in Vienna, the site of the nuclear negotiations, to help them make sure Amir’s case loomed large over the discussions.
I constantly assure the family that it takes time, but we’ll get him home. I tell them the story of Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, a former Marine with PTSD, who was unjustly imprisoned in Mexico. It took months to secure his release, but now he’s home.
When I tell Amir’s family this, they nod and they smile, but I can see in their eyes that they’re working hard not to lose hope. That’s the hardest part: keeping hope alive as the good news turns to bad, as reporters take up the cause one day and drop it the next, as the months roll into years.
This family needs more than handshakes and the occasional sound bite. It needs commitment and work and vision and a plan.
Major Garrett's job is to ask the president tough questions. President Obama, like him or not, is a brilliant, Harvard-trained attorney and a talented rhetorician when he chooses to be. I think those who rushed to outrage over the form of Major's question ended up accomplishing nothing other than patronizing the president.
You can’t solve all the world’s problems in a day, and preventing nuclear war is the highest priority. But if you ask me, these prisoners are a pretty damn high priority too. Every day they languish in prison as bargaining chips for whatever concession Iran might need next, our reputation grows weaker.
And they grow weaker. Amir has lost 30 pounds and developed a lung disease due to the squalid conditions in which he’s being held. He served his country honorably, and now he’s sitting in a damp cell while President Obama yells at Major Garrett just for mentioning him.
Just answer the question, Mr. President.
Ultimately, history may judge Major's question as a watershed moment in this crisis. At a bare minimum, anyone connected to the Internet in this country now knows there are four Americans being held hostage in Iran. The media should debate the way Major asked the question – that's healthy – but shame on those outlets who debated the words Major used without also telling those four Americans' stories.
Montel Williams is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy who served 22 years in the Marine Corps and the Navy. He went on to host the emmy award winning Montel Williams Show for 17 seasons and is now a noted activist on veterans issues. Williams is heavily involved in the campaign to free former Marine Amir Hekmati, currently held hostage in Iran nearly 4 years and asks all to use hashtag #freeamirnow on social media and go to giveforward.com/freeamir to help the Hekmati family. Follow him on Twitter@montel_williams and on facebook at Facebook.com/montelwilliamsfan.
Preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is essential, and I applaud the president’s efforts to pursue that goal diplomatically rather than militarily. He's right that it’s naive to think Iran was poised to capitulate completely, and he's right that solving every issue in one agreement is not feasible. And while the president even resorted to posing questions to himself that he thought reporters should have, he wasn't likely to address Amir Hekmati or the other three Americans held hostage or missing in Iran.
So Major Garrett had to. He pointed out one of those “concerns with regard to Iran”: that the Islamic Republic has unlawfully taken three Americans hostage (with one more missing and thought to be held by persons unknown at the behest of the regime in Tehran), and that Iran has used them as bargaining chips in an attempt to exact concessions.
Garrett asked the president why he was "content" to leave the issue of the hostages outstanding. I might have worded the questions slightly differently, but that doesn't mean Major was wrong to ask his question his way.
Amir has lost 30 pounds and developed a lung disease due to the squalid conditions in which he’s being held. He served his country honorably, and now he’s sitting in a damp cell while President Obama yells at Major Garrett just for mentioning him.Obama countered by saying that he is concerned about the hostages and that he’s met their families. And he scolded Garrett: “I gotta give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I’m content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails. Major, that’s nonsense and you should know better.”
But I can tell you that the president hasn’t met with all their families, in fact, I’ve begged him on TV to meet with the family of former Marine Amir Hekmati or at least say his name out loud.
I’ve grown close to the family over the past several months, and I’ve asked the President to visit them before Amir’s father, Ali Hekmati, dies of cancer, so that he can hear personally how much his son’s service means to his commander in chief.
I understand that the president is busy even on a good day and that scheduling a presidential visit is challenging. But it's been nearly four years. That said, I do commend Vice President Biden for meeting with Amir’s sister and her husband at length recently.
What’s a bigger deal to me than a visit, a bigger deal than the fact that the hostages weren't released immediately as a result of this deal (which I think was an unreasonable expectation), is that the president didn’t even mention the four Americans until Garrett brought them up. Granted, he’s stated his commitment to their freedom in the past, but I’ve yet to hear a plan from his administration for securing their release.
“One thing at a time,” you could argue. And that’s fair. It’s difficult and delicate work to win the release of any prisoner unjustly imprisoned abroad, especially in a rogue nation like Iran.
I know this because I’ve been working for the past 8 months advocating for Amir’s release. I’ve been on the ground with his family, most recently in Vienna, the site of the nuclear negotiations, to help them make sure Amir’s case loomed large over the discussions.
I constantly assure the family that it takes time, but we’ll get him home. I tell them the story of Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi, a former Marine with PTSD, who was unjustly imprisoned in Mexico. It took months to secure his release, but now he’s home.
When I tell Amir’s family this, they nod and they smile, but I can see in their eyes that they’re working hard not to lose hope. That’s the hardest part: keeping hope alive as the good news turns to bad, as reporters take up the cause one day and drop it the next, as the months roll into years.
This family needs more than handshakes and the occasional sound bite. It needs commitment and work and vision and a plan.
Major Garrett's job is to ask the president tough questions. President Obama, like him or not, is a brilliant, Harvard-trained attorney and a talented rhetorician when he chooses to be. I think those who rushed to outrage over the form of Major's question ended up accomplishing nothing other than patronizing the president.
You can’t solve all the world’s problems in a day, and preventing nuclear war is the highest priority. But if you ask me, these prisoners are a pretty damn high priority too. Every day they languish in prison as bargaining chips for whatever concession Iran might need next, our reputation grows weaker.
And they grow weaker. Amir has lost 30 pounds and developed a lung disease due to the squalid conditions in which he’s being held. He served his country honorably, and now he’s sitting in a damp cell while President Obama yells at Major Garrett just for mentioning him.
Just answer the question, Mr. President.
Ultimately, history may judge Major's question as a watershed moment in this crisis. At a bare minimum, anyone connected to the Internet in this country now knows there are four Americans being held hostage in Iran. The media should debate the way Major asked the question – that's healthy – but shame on those outlets who debated the words Major used without also telling those four Americans' stories.
Montel Williams is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy who served 22 years in the Marine Corps and the Navy. He went on to host the emmy award winning Montel Williams Show for 17 seasons and is now a noted activist on veterans issues. Williams is heavily involved in the campaign to free former Marine Amir Hekmati, currently held hostage in Iran nearly 4 years and asks all to use hashtag #freeamirnow on social media and go to giveforward.com/freeamir to help the Hekmati family. Follow him on Twitter@montel_williams and on facebook at Facebook.com/montelwilliamsfan.
Pentagon chief Carter not offering new arms deal to Israel
WASHINGTON – In the face of Israeli outrage over the Iran nuclear accord, the Pentagon is moving quickly to reinforce arguably the strongest part of the U.S.-Israeli relationship: military cooperation.
But officials say Washington has no plans to offer new weaponry as compensation for the Iran deal.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter left for Tel Aviv on Sunday to push ahead with talks on ways the U.S. can further improve Israel's security -- not just with Iranian threats in mind, but an array of other challenges, including cyberdefense and maritime security.
Israel also has expressed concern that U.S. sales of advanced weaponry to Gulf Arab states has the potential of offsetting, to some degree, Israel's qualitative military edge.
Aides said in advance of the trip that although Carter strongly supports the Iran deal, he had no intention of trying to reverse Israeli opposition to it. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denounced the deal as a mistake of historic proportion.
Carter is scheduled to meet with Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, as well as with Israeli generals, and visit troops in northern Israel. He plans to stop in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, U.S. allies whose leaders also are worried about implications of the nuclear deal.
On the day the Iran accord was announced, Carter issued a statement saying the U.S. is "prepared and postured" to help Israel improve its security, although he offered no specifics. He added that the U.S. would "use the military option if necessary" to protect its allies, to "check Iranian malign influence" and to ensure freedom of navigation in the Gulf.
The U.S.-Israel defense relationship has deepened in recent years, even as tensions between the two over how to contain Iran's nuclear program has grown.
The U.S. has invested hundreds of millions in an Israeli air defense system known as Iron Dome, designed to shoot down short-range rockets, mortars and artillery shells fired into northern Israel from southern Lebanon and into Israel's south from the Gaza Strip. The U.S. has worked with Israel on anti-missile systems and a wide range of other defenses. Two years ago the Pentagon committed to providing advanced radars for Israel's fleet of fighter jets and KC-135 refueling aircraft, and making Israel the first country to buy the V-22 Osprey hybrid airplane-helicopter.
Just two months ago Washington announced a $1.9 billion arms sale to Israel for a range of missiles and bombs, including bunker busters that can penetrate reinforced defenses to reach underground targets. Not included is the Pentagon's biggest bunker buster bomb.
"There is no real compensation for Israel."Israeli officials insist they are not prepared to discuss American "compensation" for the Iran deal, saying that would imply acceptance of the accord. Israel believes there are loopholes in the deal that will pave the way for Iran to eventually emerge as a nuclear power.
- Israeli Cabinet Minister Yuval Steinitz
Cabinet Minister Yuval Steinitz, Netanyahu's point man on the nuclear issue, told reporters "there is no real compensation for Israel" if Iran develops the capacity to make nuclear weapons. While he said that Israel will discuss "almost everything" with the U.S., he said Israel's focus right now is voicing its opposition to the deal.
The two countries have been holding talks on renewing a 10-year defense pact set to expire in 2018. Under the current deal, Israel receives about $3 billion in military aid from the U.S. each year. That number is likely to increase when the deal is renewed, and possibly before then.
Obama has indicated he is open to new ways of improving Israeli security, but he has played down the idea that ending economic penalties on Iran will drastically alter the balance of power in the region.
"Do we think that with the sanctions coming down, that Iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies? I think that is a likelihood," Obama told a White House news conference on Wednesday. "Do I think it's a game-changer for them? No."
Some private analysts also suggest the concern about Iranian ascendancy may be exaggerated.
"Naturally, with the lifting of sanctions there's going to be concern by Israel and Saudi Arabia that Iran will become `normalized' in the region. However, I think Iran is still going to face a certain amount of isolation," Dalia Dassa Kaye, director of the RAND Center for Middle East Public Policy, wrote in an analysis.
Obama's principal military adviser, Gen. Martin Dempsey, met with Netanyahu and Israeli military officials just last month. The Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman told reporters with him in Israel that once an Iran nuclear deal was struck, Israeli and U.S. officials needed to "quickly and comprehensively" discuss the way ahead.
"It will be incumbent on both of us to make sure that we provide the kind of reassurances that the state of Israel has always counted on us to provide. But we are going to have to do the same thing with the Gulf allies," Dempsey said, alluding to deep concerns in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that removing sanctions on Iran would make it a greater regional danger.
Dempsey said he understands why Israelis believe a nuclear deal will give Iran room to accelerate its funding of surrogate Shiite groups like Hezbollah.
"I share their concern," Dempsey said.
Trump won't apologize to McCain, suggests backlash led by trailing GOP rivals
Donald Trump on Sunday declined to apologize for his comments about war veteran and Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, suggesting the backlash is being fueled by fellow Republican presidential candidates trailing him in the polls.
“Republican candidates, some of whom are registering one percent and zero, they're very upset that I'm leading the polls by actually a nice margin,” Trump, a self-funded, billionaire real estate mogul, told ABC’s “This Week.” “They started attacking me.”
On Saturday, Trump acknowledge that McCain, a former Navy fighter pilot who spent five-and-a-half years as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, was indeed a war hero but only “because he was captured.”
“I like people who weren’t captured,” he also said.
The feud between Trump and McCain appeared to have started during a recent event in Phoenix, Ariz., that swelled to 1,500 people, many apparently energized by Trump suggesting that he would, if elected, build a wall along the southern U.S. border and that some Mexicans coming into the country are rapists and drug dealers.
McCain, whom Trump financially backed in his failed 2008 presidential bid, called the attendees “crazies,” which upset Trump, who called for an apology.
Most of the 14 other GOP candidates have condemned Trump’s remarks about McCain, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry who are calling for Trump to quit the race.
“This is not just an insult to John McCain, who clearly is a war hero and a great man,” Rubio said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But it's an insult to all POWs, to all men and women who have served us in uniform, who have been captured in battle. … It's ridiculous. And I do think it is a disqualifier as commander in chief.”
Within hours of Trump’s “war hero” comments, Perry called for him to drop out, and he repeated his position Sunday.
“I really don't understand his strategy here of taking on a bullet that went through John McCain and a hit a lot of us that wore the uniform of this country,” Perry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I still stand by my statement. Until Mr. Trump apologizes directly to John McCain and to the veterans of this country, I don't think he has the character or the temperament to hold the highest position in this country.”
McCain has yet to respond.
“I'm certainly not pulling out,” Trump told ABC. “I'm leading and I'm leading in many states. … And I will win the Hispanic vote.”
Trump also said he received a standing ovation after the event Saturday in Ames, Iowa, at which he made the comments and that “nobody was offended.”
“This whole thing was brought up by a lot of the people that are competing against me currently that aren't even registering in the polls,” he said.
Trump also repeated earlier criticism about McCain failing to use his elected position of power to improve the trouble Department of Veterans Affairs so that veterans could get better health care without the exceedingly long waits.
“It's a scandal. And John McCain has done nothing,” he said, before waving off criticism from veterans’ groups, saying, “Maybe they don't speak to the same vets that I speak to.”
Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns
The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.
The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.
If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”
The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.
Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.
The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.
The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.
Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Trump attacks McCain's record as war hero, draws rebuke from GOP presidential field
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s criticism Saturday of fellow party member and Arizona Sen. John McCain for being “captured” during the Vietnam War brought sharp rebuke from others in the GOP field.
“He was a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said at the Family Leadership Summit, in Ames, Iowa. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
Most of the 14 other GOP candidates, including some at the summit, immediately criticized Trump’s remarks.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry tweeted that McCain “is an American hero” and that all U.S. prisoners of war “deserve our nation's highest debt of gratitude” and that Trump’s comments are “disgraceful.”
He also called on Trump to apologize and said the comments make him “unfit” to become commander in chief and that he should quit the race.
Trump made his remarks after the conference moderator, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, described McCain as "a war hero" and Trump was pressed on his recent description of McCain as "a dummy."
McCain spent more than five years as a prisoner of war after his plane was shot down during combat in Vietnam.
McCain and Trump have been feuding for days. The discord apparently follows a recent joint event in Phoenix, Ariz., that swelled to 1,500 people when Trump decided to attend and talk about illegal immigration.
McCain referred to the attendees as “crazies.”
Trump when announcing his candidacy said some Mexicans who cross the border illegally come with problems and that some are “rapists.”
He said McCain calling the attendees at the Arizona event crazies was “disrespectful.”
“These were not crazies," Trump said. “These were great American citizens.”
Trump earlier complained about having financially backed McCain’s failed 2008 presidential bid and said that McCain graduated last in his class at the U.S. Naval Academy.
More recently, he has accused McCain of failing veterans by not improving the trouble Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency that provides their health care.
Trump said in a series of tweets after the event: “I will make this right for our great Vets!” and “John McCain has failed miserably to fix the situation and to make it possible for veterans to successfully manage their lives.”
Among the other 2016 GOP presidential candidates to respond was Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
“John McCain is an American hero,” he said on Twitter. “I have nothing but respect for his service to our country.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a GOP candidate who has been at or near the top of most polls since the start of the election cycle, said on Twitter: “Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans -- particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.”
Candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on Twitter: “Senator John McCain is an American hero. Period. Stop.”
As US energy output surges, Republicans lead effort to lift decades-old oil export ban
Congressional Republicans are leading a bipartisan effort to lift a decades-old ban on oil exports, arguing the recent surge in domestic-energy production and other factors have pushed the embargo past its prime.
To be sure, the United States has recently emerged as the world’s largest energy producer -- largely the result of the relatively new method of extracting natural gas and hard-to-get oil known as “fracking.”
Supporters of the plan, including many in the oil and gas industry, essentially argue that lifting the ban would help the U.S. economy. They say it is now slowing future energy production and exploration and that U.S. companies could profit from getting an abundance of domestic energy products on world markets.
“I’m optimistic about our efforts,” North Dakota GOP Rep. Kevin Cramer told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. “We have bipartisan support and a broad understanding of the issue among members.”
Cramer largely attributes the support from rank-and-file members and top GOP leadership alike to three separate bills circulating in three different House committees -- Agriculture, Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce.
He touts the legislation as a potential boon for the U.S. economy. And he prefers a measured approach to passage, amid urgent calls to immediately repeal the ban in the wake of the Iran nuclear pact, fearing that strategy will become a political football like the Keystone XL Pipeline, not the “jobs creator” he wants it to be.
Cramer and other supporters also argue that lifting the ban would result in cheaper electricity, which would spark growth in U.S. manufacturing and other sectors of the economy, beyond the oil and gas industry.
In addition, they argue, the so-called “light sweet” or “sweet” oil derived from fracking and the companion horizontal-drilling process cannot be readily processed by U.S. refineries but is exceptionally valuable overseas.
“It’s a premium product,” said Cramer, who is co-sponsoring bills by Texas Republican Reps. Joe Barton and Mike McCaul that combined have at least 10 Democratic co-sponsors.
However, calls to lift the ban, the result of the 1970’s energy crisis, have also brought out critics. And they have resulted in conflicting reports about the potential impact of adding billions of barrels of U.S. crude oil to world markets -- from oil prices plummeting around the globe to gas prices increasing at pumps across the county.
“Pro-ban supports would like to make it cut and dry, but it’s a very complicated issue,” Jay Hauck, executive director of the CRUDE coalition, said Friday. “It’s an onion, and you have to peel away the layers.”
The group, whose full name is Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, represents U.S. energy companies and advocates for keeping crude in the country.
Hauck argues the U.S. is indeed now the world’s biggest energy producer but has yet to achieve total energy independence, which means exporting would result in billions of barrels more annually from foreign countries, posing a greater national security risk.
One of the biggest critics of lifting the ban is Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who was in charge of the USS Cole in 2000 when terrorists attached and detonated a bomb on the destroyer at a Yemen port, killing 17 American sailors.
Lippold testified at a recent House hearing on the issue that the biggest benefactor of U.S. exports would be rival China.
In the Senate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is helping lead efforts to lift the ban.
She was among those sending early-warning signals about the Iran nuclear deal allowing the oil rich country to put 1 million barrels daily on the world market.
“We are letting Iran export its oil to markets that we prevent our own companies from accessing,” Murkowski said in late June. “Any deal that lifts sanctions on Iranian oil will disadvantage American companies unless we lift the antiquated ban on our own oil exports."
And Murkowski’s committee held a hearing June 9 on a bill that she and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota Democrat, have co-sponsored on lifting the ban.
However, a top Senate staff told FoxNews.com after the Iran deal was struck Tuesday that Murkowski has no intentions of holding up a major foreign policy vote or international trade legislation over lifting the ban, likely references to the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact being debated in Congress and the upcoming votes on the Iran nuclear deal.
(The staffer made the comments after a House effort to insert ban-lifting language into the trade pact went nowhere.)
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said this spring that he doesn’t think “an overly compelling argument has been made” to lift the ban while the U.S. continues to import 7 million barrels of crude oil daily.
However, the issue is being handled by the Commerce Department, not the Energy Department. And Moniz made clear he was not making a statement “in support of or against the idea of exports.”
Both agencies decline Friday to comment.
Hauck said the companies that his group represents are not "absolutely, under-no-circumstances opposed" to lifting the ban and would consider such a change when the U.S. becomes free from foreign oil dependency.
Cramer says the House bills, including the third from Texas GOP Rep. Mike Conaway, could be combined or become an amendment to a large bill.
And he sees possibility in the fact that the White House has never threatened to veto such legislation.
“I’m the optimist,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...