August 19, 2015 --

When President Obama gave his "aggressive" (quoting a New York Times August 6 report) defense of the nuclear arms deal with Iran, August 5, he included two comments that, to LPR, were interesting but generally ignored by the media.

The president said that "we will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly." Presumably in Iran. LPR wonders, does negotiating the nuclear arms deal with Iran violate U.S. policy to refuse to negotiate with hostage-takes and terrorists? If, somehow, negotiating with Iran while it holds Americans "unjustly" does not contravene U.S. policy, couldn't President Obama have demanded the release of these Americans, instead of merely insisting on their freedom?

President Obama also asserted that he has "done more than any other president to strengthen Israel's security." Really? Is that why he cut off air travel to Israel during the Gaza fighting, last summer? Is this statement backed by polls, let alone facts?

It was reported that President Obama spoke at American University because that was where President John F. Kennedy, in 1963, proposed a treaty with the Soviet Union to ban nuclear arms tests.

For LPR, however, President Kennedy's call for a treaty banning nuclear tests is not comparable to the current deal with Iran. A treaty, after all, requires two-thirds backing of Senators present and voting. The deal with Iran merely calls for the president's approval, backed by a minority -- one-third plus one -- of senators present and voting. A treaty follows the constitution's guidelines. A deal, being whatever the president says it is, takes us away from the Constitution into the vast government wasteland of an imperial presidency.