'y' or 'n'

Fox Butterfield, is that you?

You keep speaking of this "law" thing as though, at this point, it made some sort of difference.

Sorry that the obvious escapes you so readily.

Again: what is "the deal"?
Cough up the actual details about what's going on, why don't you?
The Iran deal is a 100% "stuck in fupid" waste of time. I hope that the Secretary of Stumped got a lot of freaky flier miles. Iran is doing what it's going to do. We have stated that, not only do we refuse to oppose them, but we're going to blow off sanctions. I guess it proves what morons we are. President Jarrett must be all giggly.
Then there's you and your brother d_r on here trying to be apologists for the idiocy.
What an inverted day we live in.

Are you unaware that there are "side deals" with the IAEA to which Congress is not privy? Your use of "fact" in this context is. . .humorous.

This is 100% you talking. I defy you to show when I (or anyone else, for that matter) has EVER floated a theory that HRC or BHO initiated the attack on Benghazi, irrespective of motive.
I theorize that you're in High Troll mode here, and rate this a C+ effort.

By not submitting a treaty as a treaty, for 2/3 ratification, I'm pretty sure President Jarrett has indicated her overall opinion of whatever Congress has to say.

The chief value of the Secretary of Stumped is to distract from the stone cold disaster that was his predecessor.
We so baked!

Contrast the situation with your boy Woodrow after WWI, when a proper Congress told a POTUS to stuff his idiocy. The Iran deal is to diplomacy what Planned Parenthood is to unborn life.
[troll]
But go ahead and get your d_r on, assuming a proud, sneering posture in the face of a wretched debacle.
[/troll]

You're sooooo right: I'm the one doing the "drive by". We're just going to "wash, rinse, repeat" that.

Because the only one that has a response responsibility is me. The mistake was ever to consider this dialogue.

Well, let's keep in mind that you're the one asking the questions here. Far be it from you to sound anything other than Oz-like.

Oh, and you "know" all of the politics and legalities and intrigues. As though it wasn't ALL charades, from end to end, subsequent to the departure from common sense. Which was my point, after all.

If "illegal" means "likely to result in court action that actually sticks" let's just stipulate that the Obama Administration is just a sea of tea & crumpets.
Having rejected the idea of truth, the rule of law is just a line of coke we seem to snort together.

You understand that there are side deals with the IAEA? Watch the Senator Cotton video at the link. The whole situation is utterly indefensible. We could have just had the Red Hot Chili Peppers go to negotiations and play a concert and had more for our money. Our foreign policy seems to be: "Yeah, we got nothin'."