To the editor of The Boston Globe:
Reading in Nicholas Burns' commentary, "Will Congress torpedo Obama's Iran deal?," that "Congress will have every right to ask tough questions of the administration when a final deal is reached," one wonders why he opposes the legislation being put before Congress, with overwhelming and bipartisan support, that calls for just that.
Contrary to Burns' implication that congressional leaders are cooking up "schemes to block him [President Obama]," one measure calls for the congressional oversight Burns and the Constitution agree is appropriate while the other puts in place a contingency plan in case the negotiations fail.
It's hard to understand why anyone would oppose either measure unless he feared the proposal being negotiated wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. But isn't that why our government is supposed to have checks and balances?
Submitted March 19, 2015. Never published.