President Barack Obama's chief of staff said in a letter to Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker over the weekend that the administration would like Congress to take no legislative action until the administration completes a deal that attempts to limit Iran's nuclear program.
No kidding.
Indeed, the administration would just as soon nobody even talked about it, because it doesn't look like much of a deal. Instead of negotiations that might have concluded with the Middle East country not being allowed to build up a nuclear program, which was possible at the beginning of Obama's first term, the deal on the table now only would freeze the country's program for 10 years in exchange for sanctions being removed.
Ten years is a very short time. Recall, for instance, that it's now been more than 35 years since Iran kidnapped 52 American hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. So the country could hardly be called one that acts in good faith.
Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough suggested in the letter that Congress not even discuss the bipartisan legislation sponsored by Corker that would give the Senate and House an opportunity to review and sign off on such a deal before the March 24 deadline when talks are supposed to conclude.
And, by the way, the administration already has said it would veto such legislation anyway. So asking legislators not to discuss a bill it already said it would veto takes a lot of chutzpah.
Despite that, McDonough did acknowledge that Congress would have a role to play. Because whatever deal is concluded, Congress would have to sign off on ending the sanctions that it once agreed to put in place.
That, of course, is precisely why Congress should be involved.
So, let's review: The Obama administration doesn't want Congress to discuss legislation the administration already has promised to veto but says it will need that same Congress to give the administration what it wants when it comes to concluding the deal it doesn't want Congress to discuss.
Logical, right?
Corker was having none of it, saying in a statement "it is very important that Congress appropriately weigh in" on an "issue where Congress has played such a vital role."
Now that makes more sense.